Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Bovine TB

George Osborne: What steps her Department is taking to stop the spread of bovine tuberculosis in Cheshire.

Ben Bradshaw: In view of the relatively low incidence of TB in Cheshire, not just herds neighbouring TB incidents but all herds within a 1 km radius of any incidents are tested, with a further extension of testing to a 2 km radius if the case is confirmed by post-mortem examination or laboratory culture. Cheshire is also included in the gamma interferon policy pilot. We will announce new proposals to help tackle TB soon.

George Osborne: My local farmers, and many others, feel that the Department has done too little, too late. I understand that it is publishing a draft strategy next week. Will the strategy include proposals to require pre-testing of cattle moving from highly infected to less infected areas such as Cheshire, so that such areas can remain relatively disease free and there is a source for restocking in future?

Ben Bradshaw: I do not think the hon. Gentleman would expect me to pre-empt what we might say next week. I think it is right for Parliament to know what the proposals are first, in full. His argument in favour of pre-movement testing is persuasive, but I do not think that what he says about the general policy on TB is fair. There are no quick fixes when it comes to animal diseases. For many years, cattle herds suffered from brucellosis. It affected a far bigger proportion of the herds than TB does now, and it took decades to eradicate. We are doing what we can, and I think that the strategy we will launch next week will show the way forward.

David Drew: I look forward to the release of the strategy, but given the deluge of written questions to my hon. Friend from Conservative Members, would it not be useful for Members to be briefed properly on the science behind TB so that we can really understand all the difficulties? Will my hon. Friend treat that as a matter of urgency? We need to have a proper discussion.

Ben Bradshaw: That is a good point. It had not escaped my notice that I had been deluged with written questions on the issue. I have offered my opposite number a technical briefing along the lines described by my hon. Friend, but so far he has not taken up the offer.

Adrian Flook: On 8 January the Minister said in an Adjournment debate:
	"It may be a good idea to allow lay testing for the simple procedure of the skin test."—[Official Report, 8 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 504.]
	Can the Minister say when he will make that decision, and whether he thinks that lay testing could undermine excellent rural practices such as those of the Fieldhouses in Dulverton, which rely on such testing for valuable income that enables them to stay in rural areas?

Ben Bradshaw: In principle, we still believe that there is a strong argument in favour of lay testing, not least to help us deal with the backlog, but also to relieve practices that are under pressure. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the future of rural practices. Lay testing would not be forced on anyone; it would only be done if practices themselves chose to do it. We will make an announcement in due course.

Roy Beggs: Stopping the spread of TB in Cheshire and every other part of the United Kingdom is important to all of us. Has the Minister or his Department seen recently published claims that selenium and iodine used on farms have prevented TB from occurring on some farms?

Ben Bradshaw: I do not know of those findings, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has just pointed out from a sedentary position that he has been making that point for some time in regard to trace elements. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the findings.

Owen Paterson: I thank the Minister and his officials for the way in which they have, so far, replied to the questions about TB that I have tabled. The Minister kindly invited me to go and see him. There is a big difference between questions being answered on the record and an informal chat. I may take up his offer at a later date, but I will continue to question him.
	I am sure that the Minister agrees that accurate diagnostics are vital to the control of any disease. I am sure that he also agrees that while the tuberculin test is a good herd test, in individual animals, sensitivity is only 60 to 65 per cent.—as opposed to 98.4 per cent., which has been achieved with gamma interferon in Australia. Why, then, has he not taken up the Independent Scientific Group's proposal to establish three groups of 50 herds in a major trial of the efficiency of gamma interferon? At present only a small number of field trials are being conducted, which is not satisfactory.

Ben Bradshaw: The gamma interferon test could not be taken in isolation; it would accompany the current test. Although we have some sympathy with the ISG's wish to increase the science return, what it proposes would not only add to the logistical difficulties involved in the pilot, but raise ethical and legal issues. It would mean identifying disease but not acting on the information or informing herd owners.

Common Agricultural Policy

Michael Jack: If she will make a statement on the proposals to implement the revised common agricultural policy.

Margaret Beckett: I hope to make an announcement on the model for allocating entitlements under the new single payment scheme in England in the near future.

Michael Jack: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer, but she will realise that since 26 June—when she announced to the House the outcome of the Agriculture Council, detailing the largest single change to the CAP since it was envisaged—Parliament has remained silent on this issue. Can she explain why no debate has been afforded to this House, in Government time, to inform her thinking on this matter? As an announcement from her is imminent, could she draw to the House's attention her reaction to the letter that she received from Herr Fischler? It clearly indicated his wish that member states use the historical basis to determine the allocation of single payments, which goes against the line floated by Lord Whitty at the Oxford farming conference on 6 January.

Margaret Beckett: First, the right hon. Gentleman correctly points out that the reform deal was agreed in June, and I am glad that he has at least recognised that it constitutes a very substantial reform. Of course, we then initiated a consultation process, and responses were received until—if I remember correctly—October or November. The responses were varied, a range of different views was expressed, and analysis of those views is being undertaken. I believe that I have reported that to the House on occasions such as this, and I know that I have made clear in exchanges across the Floor of the House the two biggest decisions: the full decoupling of subsidy from production; and the introduction of that change at the earliest possible date, in 2005.
	On the letter that I received from Herr Fischler—he has written to all member states—I have read it with care and discussed these issues with him. His concern is that an attempt should not be made artificially to redistribute support on other criteria. He is of course also concerned that in every member state we establish sound principles for future schemes that will be of benefit to the farming community as a whole.
	As for my noble Friend Lord Whitty's remarks at the Oxford conference, he made it clear that a range of issues has to be considered and weighed carefully. Indeed, such analysis and thinking is currently going on in the Department.

Lindsay Hoyle: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could assist in ensuring that the wealthiest of farmers, such as the Duke of Westminster, do not benefit from CAP reform, and that support continues to be given to low-income farms and to tenant farmers, who struggle to make a living?

Margaret Beckett: As I said a moment ago, the Commission has advised against seeking redistribution for its own sake; on the other hand, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of low-income farmers and those who are currently beset by difficulties. The impact of potential change on the various participants in the world of farming, particularly the most vulnerable, is precisely one of the factors that we are seeking to weigh very carefully.

John Wilkinson: But is it not the case that even a reformed common agricultural policy will perpetuate grotesquely high food prices for consumers in the United Kingdom and maintain the distortion of international trade, which consciously, by means of protectionism and subsidies, ensures the impoverishment of primary agricultural producer countries in Latin America and elsewhere?

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right to suggest that the reform deal will not have a major impact on food prices. However, he is doubtless conscious of the fact that if the British Government are able to achieve the reforms that we are seeking through the World Trade Organisation—to be fair, the rest of the European Union is also seeking them—that could have an impact on food prices in the longer term. But I accept part of the point that he makes, in that the impact on consumers will not be as great as some had hoped.

Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend's earlier answer to the substantive question will be welcomed in my part of the world. However, has her Department thought through the communications strategy, so that farmers, particularly those in the more remote areas such as the North York Moors national park, can fully understand the implications for their incomes, bearing in mind their particular status within the subsidy regime?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My Department is giving careful consideration to how we can best communicate the implications of any proposals for farmers and farming communities. He and other hon. Members will know that we are slightly handicapped at the moment because some of the detailed regulations have not yet been produced. We are talking to the Commission and pressing it to come forward, which may help to shape the outcome.

John Whittingdale: While it is clearly important to have widespread consultation on the matter, does the Secretary of State accept that the delay in announcing the decision is causing widespread uncertainty across the whole industry, and that it is also giving the Rural Payments Agency very little time to prepare for such an enormous change? Will she recognise that the vast majority of farmers have supported the case for decoupling, but on the basis of a historically based method of allocation? Whatever model is finally chosen, the one thing that we must avoid is substituting one bureaucratic, complicated and costly system with another.

Margaret Beckett: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's last remarks: we do want to avoid replacing one complicated and costly system with another, but we all recognise that there will be transitional issues. I am mindful of the impact on the Rural Payments Agency of the timing of any decisions, and we are constantly in touch with it. I accept that if the issue continued to drag on, it could become a cause of uncertainty, but farmers know the two most important points—that we intend to abandon the link between production and subsidy, and that we wish to do so as early as possible—and all our economic analysis suggests that that is what will have the greatest impact on our economy and the decisions that farmers take. Other factors are important, but less so in the scale of things. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we in no sense wish to delay the decision for any longer than is needed to assess all the implications of the decisions that we have to take for the farming community as a whole.

GM Crops

Tony Lloyd: If she will make a statement on her review of the scientific evidence on GM crops.

Margaret Beckett: We warmly welcome the final report of the GM science review and advice on the results of the farm-scale evaluations. We are now considering all the evidence and will set out our conclusions shortly.

Tony Lloyd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her response. I put it to her that the public are still sceptical about the value of GM crops, and that such scepticism is based on the view that it is not unscientific to hold to the proposition that the contamination of conventional or organic crops from GM plantings would have a long-term impact, which might be irretrievable and cause permanent damage to our economy and agricultural system. Will she take those views into account and ensure that she lays out the scientific evidence clearly if she wants to convince the doubting public that there is some benefit in GM crop plantings?

Margaret Beckett: I assure my hon. Friend that there is nothing I would like more than to feel that the scientific evidence is fully in the public domain and for people to weigh it. I entirely accept his point that the public are sceptical about the value of some GM crops at the present time. Indeed, he will recall that the economic study carried out by the Prime Minister's strategy unit made the point that the present generation of crops that are available have only limited relevance, worth or impact in UK circumstances. It might perhaps be different in other parts of the world. Of course we take those concerns seriously, but my hon. Friend would accept, since we are talking about scientific evidence, that in a world where GM is extensively grown and extensively available, we have to deal with the reality of its existence and not hope that somehow it can be totally wished away.

Andrew George: In a written answer to me on 17 December, the Minister for the Environment confirmed that the relevant Government Departments had agreed to authorise the use of Bt11 GM maize, even though surveys show that less than 2 per cent. of the public support the use of GM in all circumstances. Does the Secretary of State understand that there is widespread unease about that, and about the other incremental steps that are being taken towards a momentous and irreversible decision on GM crops? Will she confirm that the Government will bring forward a clear policy on the matter before any other decisions are made, and that time will be made available for a debate on the Floor of the House, on a substantive motion?

Margaret Beckett: We are not trying to pre-empt the outcome of the debate or to make major decisions before the appropriate policy statement can be laid before the public or the House. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman—as I have told the House in the past—that ongoing procedures for handling these matters exist in the EU. I am sure that he will recall that, not so long ago, the Government were being pressed by groups outside the House to make no response at all to requests for input or information about matters put before the EU as a whole by other member states. My advice to hon. Members was that, if we made no input, the assumption would be that we approved and that we had no queries or questions to raise. We have always continued to raise queries and concerns, where we felt that that was necessary. I assure the hon. Gentleman that no one is trying to pre-empt anything by stealth.

Alan Simpson: The Secretary of State and her Ministers have assured the House constantly that the UK would not support GM crop plantings that were separate from a liabilities regime, irrespective of approval decisions made in this place or in Europe as a whole. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the question of liability for contamination will be cleared up before any plantings are approved or allowed in this country?

Margaret Beckett: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is correct about what Ministers have said in the past, but he will know that we received the independent advisory committee report on contamination and co-existence under the liability only very recently. We are considering it at the moment. We are of course anxious to weigh these difficult and major issues properly, and I hope that we will be able to comment on them in the not too distant future. However, I assure him that we are mindful of the interaction of these issues, both in the minds of the public and in reality.

Simon Thomas: The Secretary of State talks about dealing with the reality of GM crops, but I draw her attention to a report published this week by the University of Glamorgan, which found that a large amount of supermarket-bought organic food contained traces of GM. The traces were large enough to be detected, but below the 0.9 per cent. level at which labelling for GM is required. Does that not imply that, before there are any further developments in the UK in connection with GM, we need a proper regime for labelling GM crops? Should not that regime also provide for the labelling of organic foods, and the preservation of the organic sector? Does she agree that procedures for liability and compensation must be in place before any further steps are taken?

Margaret Beckett: I was not aware of the study to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I look forward with interest to hearing about it, assuming that it has been peer reviewed and is considered to be valid. He will know, I am sure, that a strong regime already exists in EU and British law for traceability and labelling. As he appreciates, that regime has a threshold trigger of 0.9 per cent. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman meant to, but in a sense he has emphasised—in spades—the point that I made some moments ago. If the results that he reports are correct, GM presence in the UK is an issue, even though no GM crops are being grown here at present. That confirms my view that we cannot simply wish away this technology.

Chris Bryant: Does my right hon. Friend worry that many people's objections to GM crops contain an element of Luddism, and that some people deliberately hype up the fears about GM? Does she feel that, in addition to ensuring that there is a good labelling regime, the best way forward is to make sure that people understand fully the scientific benefits, as well as the economic ones, that GM crops could bring to the UK and to many developing countries? Will she go out and preach the message a little bit more?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend expresses his views with his customary vigour. All the reports from the Prime Minister's strategy unit on the economics of the issues and from the science review indicate that there are concerns and potential problems, which must be addressed by strong and sound scientifically based legislation. In the longer term, however, there may be potential benefits not only in this country but elsewhere across the world. My reading of the response to the public dialogue is that people are conscious of that potential, although their concerns remain and must be addressed.

Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Lady agree that one reason for the public disquiet is that only one of the three trialled crops was cleared? Cross-pollination is a particular problem that has not been tackled, and it will affect the highly regarded and lucrative niche market in organics. Will she support the draft Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), which comes before the House on 26 March?

Margaret Beckett: I have not studied the draft Bill, but I will do so as a matter of great urgency. The public's unease is not a result of one of the crops in our trials showing different results from the other three; it was there before the trials were set up, and we must take it seriously and understand it. Although the hon. Lady states that one of the crops in the trials was cleared, the immediate response from some who commented was that none of them should be cleared, so there is clearly resistance in some quarters.
	The hon. Lady made an important point about the potential for cross-pollination. One of my concerns—this is why I told my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) that we must get as much of the science as possible into the public domain—is that sometimes people are given the impression that cross-pollination difficulties will occur irrespectively, but that is not necessarily the case because different questions arise if a crop does not have wild relatives or does not readily cross-pollinate. I do not mean that there are no questions, but there is greater uncertainty and difference than is sometimes conveyed.

Departmental Staff

Richard Bacon: How many people are employed by (a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for which her Department is responsible.

Alun Michael: DEFRA employs around 7,000 people and a further 6,430 are employed in its agencies. 14,450 people are employed by DEFRA's 19 executive non-departmental public bodies and 2,100 people are employed by our two public corporations.

Richard Bacon: DEFRA has 12 in-house delivery agents, 15 inspectorates, six executive agencies, 19 executive non-departmental public bodies, 29 non-executive non-departmental bodies, two public corporations and representatives in eight of the nine Government offices for the regions. One of those representatives recently told farmers in my constituency that her role was not to deliver programmes but
	"to provide strategic input into a multiplicity of strategies"—
	whatever that may mean.
	Does the Minister agree with Lord Haskins, who told the Government last October that there is room for streamlining in the Department? If he agrees with Lord Haskins, when will it happen?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated her acceptance of the thrust of Lord Haskins's report immediately after its publication and said that we would work very hard on its implementation, which we are doing. The list that he has just reeled off indicates DEFRA's wide range of responsibilities across the environment, farming, food and general rural affairs. We first had representatives in the Government offices for the regions when DEFRA was set up, and the delivery of specific programmes lies with specific organisations such as the Rural Payments Agency and the Rural Development Service.

Andrew Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend consider reducing the number of people employed in the Countryside Agency, or encouraging the agency to do so and use of some of the money saved to make grants available so that we can make the legislation on access to the countryside a practicality in the summer? If those grants were available to provide stiles and other access to land, it would make a great difference.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend points to an element that was considered carefully by Lord Haskins and on which we are working. He will be aware that the proposals involved the creation of a single integrated agency for issues such as land management, biodiversity and so on. That would have an impact on the Countryside Agency, and we also intend to move towards greater regional and local delivery of services. The points that he makes are valid and we will consider them as we work through the programme of reform to which the Haskins report has given rise.

Alistair Carmichael: One of the most important agencies of DEFRA is the state veterinary service, which is the greatly overstretched front line for biosecurity in this country. Will the Minister consider the staffing levels of the service and see what can be done to arrest the decline that occurred year on year under the previous Government? I should remind the House that my wife is a practising veterinary surgeon, although in private practice.

Alun Michael: We keep the numbers in the state veterinary service under review. The figure at the moment is 1,399, which is considerably lower than the numbers at the time of foot and mouth disease, when staffing levels were greatly expanded. As the hon. Gentleman reminds us, there was a reduction under the previous Government. We certainly keep the numbers under review.

Paddy Tipping: Does my right hon. Friend accept that staff in the Department and its agencies will be affected in one way or another by Lord Haskins's review? As my right hon. Friend said, an initial announcement has been made, but is there not a danger from a lack of strategic planning—a sort of planning blight—unless final decisions are made fairly quickly? Will he confirm that the full implementation of the Haskins recommendations would require primary legislation, of which there is little early chance?

Alun Michael: When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State initially responded to the Haskins report, she rightly said that primary legislation would be required to change the legal status of agencies or to create a new agency with independent status, but much can be done through co-ordination and co-working. I can tell my hon. Friend that we are working with leading people in the Countryside Agency, English Nature and other affected organisations—including the Rural Development Service, which is part of DEFRA at the moment. Lord Haskins recommended that the RDS, as a delivery arm, should be linked to English Nature and the new integrated agency. The organisations are working well together and I am impressed by the high quality and motivation of staff in DEFRA and its agencies, and by the way in which they seek to improve the quality of the service that they give to their customers and the public. After all, that is what we were trying to achieve through the review by Lord Haskins, which should be set in a renewal of rural strategy, to which my right hon. Friend has said she will return in the course of this year.

Caroline Spelman: It is now nearly three months since Lord Haskins published his report reviewing the work of all the agencies included in the structure of DEFRA. Within a day of it being published, Lord Haskins summarised the findings of his 172-page report in six simple words, when he described DEFRA as a
	"dog's dinner of the highest order".
	When the Minister last answered a written question on headcount, he said that information on staffing numbers at the Environment Agency and the Countryside Agency were not available, and that the information on non-departmental public bodies was not held centrally. Does not the lack of clarity in the staffing numbers at DEFRA show that it is a dog's dinner, the content of which is a mystery?

Alun Michael: That is a real dog's dinner of a question. The hon. Lady might well have said that it is only three months since Lord Haskins reported and considered the complexity of issues involved in dealing properly with staff and maintaining services to customers and the public. The Countryside Agency employs about 665 people, some of whom will be working in areas that Lord Haskins recommended should go into the integrated agency. The Environment Agency employs more than 10,000 staff, dealing with a wide range of issues—environmental protection, fisheries, navigation and so on. The hon. Lady should consider some of the complexities that we, as a Department, have to address.

Avian Influenza

Michael Fabricant: What precautions are in place to prevent the infection of the national flock of chickens with bird influenza virus; and if she will make a statement.

Ben Bradshaw: The Government have banned imports from all the affected countries of all live birds, unprocessed poultry meat, and other bird products capable of transmitting the avian flu virus.

Michael Fabricant: I thank the Minister for his answer. Of course, he gave a fuller answer when he answered the urgent question last Wednesday. Thankfully, answering that question, he said that
	"the risk of the disease being transmitted to the UK poultry flock is low",
	but that as an additional precaution he would be
	"asking ports to be extra vigilant and to prohibit the importation of consignments that do not fully comply with the rules."—[Official Report, 28 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 313.]
	I hate coming back to the same old subject, but the Minister will have read the Home Office reports on the integrity of British ports. He has said in the House on a number of previous occasions that there are now two sniffer dogs to detect the illegal importation of poultry and beef and that eventually there will be six. There are more than 100 ports. When will he stop being complacent—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is far too long.

Ben Bradshaw: Not only long, Mr. Speaker, but repetitive. As I have told the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) several times, that is a matter for Customs and Excise, which is doing an excellent job; it is hugely increasing the amount it spends on checking at airports and trebling the number of sniffer dogs. In the next financial year, Customs will hugely increase the amount of money it spends on those things.

Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to my question to the Minister on his statement last Wednesday, has he had any joy from Professor Ian Maudlin and the Roslin Institute or, indeed, any other leading research department in Britain, in order to help those countries that have a heck of a problem?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, indeed. Immediately after the urgent question last week, I asked my officials to make contact with the institute to which my hon. Friend referred. Those contacts have been made, and I am sure that such help and expertise will help not only us but the whole international community in addressing this serious problem.

David Burnside: Until the threat of this foreign virus is removed, will the Minister give a commitment to contact personally the chairmen of Tesco, Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury and all our major supermarket chains—indeed, he could even write to Colonel Sanders of KFC—to ask that those chains stock only good, healthy, fresh British chickens?

Ben Bradshaw: I think it would be very wrong if the House were left with the impression that it is unsafe to eat the chicken products on the shelves of our supermarkets. That is not the case. The Food Standards Agency has made it absolutely clear that there is no risk at all of catching avian flu from consuming chicken products. The products that I outlined have been banned for import anyway. However, I always advise, as I did last week in answer to the urgent question, that consumers should buy British.

Michael Clapham: My hon. Friend will be aware that avian influenza can be devastating to susceptible birds. In my constituency, there are a number of small poultry farms. Is my hon. Friend sure that the DEFRA information pack has reached those small farmers so that they are aware of what to look out for?

Ben Bradshaw: I very much hope so, but after Question Time I shall check that it has. My hon. Friend is right but, as I said last week, it is also the case that the threat to our flocks from avian flu was much more serious last year when there was an outbreak across the channel in the Netherlands. It is highly unlikely that there will be any infection in our flocks as a result of an outbreak in south-east Asia, but we are taking all the necessary precautions available to us. However, my hon. Friend is right—any outbreak would be extremely serious.

GM Crops

Joan Ruddock: When GM maize will be licensed for commercial growing in the UK.

Margaret Beckett: Decisions on applications to release particular GM crops for commercial cultivation in the European Union, including the UK, are subject to collective EU agreement under the procedures and timetable set down in EC directive 2001/18 and are made on a case-by-case basis. EU-wide licences for three types of GM maize were granted in 1997–98. However, none can yet be grown commercially in the UK because no variety of those three types of GM maize has been added to either the UK national list of seeds or the EU common catalogue.

Joan Ruddock: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. As she indicates, there is a step—listing on the UK national seeds list. Can she tell the House when the meeting will take place; what discussions she has already had with her counterparts in the devolved Assembly and Parliament; and when indeed she expects pesticide approval to be granted? I understand that those would be the only remaining steps necessary for GM maize to be granted approval by this country—even though, as she says, there is an EU dimension.

Margaret Beckett: I cannot tell my hon. Friend that. All I can say is that she correctly identifies some of the steps that have to be taken. We have had discussions—I anticipate that we will have further discussions—with the devolved bodies about those issues, which, as she says, concern all of us, but I merely remind her that, as I said in my answer, the licensing of those crops was undertaken in 1997–98.

Jonathan Sayeed: If scientific evidence shows that organic farms become contaminated by GM maize or other GMOs, thereby losing their price premium, who will compensate those organic farmers?

Margaret Beckett: That is the nub of the issues that people are discussing and on which we have some advice already from the independent agricultural advisory committee. I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that, of course, we have to take account of what are the possibilities of what is described as the contamination of conventional food or organic food by GM crops. Of course procedures are in place to try to protect the purity of organic crops against conventional crops, so we are considering the mechanisms that already exist and what should happen if problems arise.

Ridgeway

David Rendel: If she will make a statement on protection of the Ridgeway.

Alun Michael: Over the past year, I have held several meetings—most recently on 28 January—with local MPs, including the hon. Gentleman, Members of the House of Lords and the local highway authorities to address the problems of damage to the surface of the trail by vehicular traffic. The Ridgeway management group, which consists of the Countryside Agency and local highway authorities, has produced an action plan that includes measures to repair and protect the surface of the trail, such as the use of traffic regulation orders by local highway authorities. For example, Wiltshire county council is introducing such an order for Smeathe's ridge.

David Rendel: I thank the Minister very much for the sterling work that he is doing to try to protect the Ridgeway—I think that all the MPs concerned would agree with that—but may I ask him what is the comparative cost of introducing one TRO for the entire Ridgeway compared with each local authority having to introduce its own TRO?

Alun Michael: That issue was raised at the meeting last week, and I have asked officials to look at it, but one of the problems is that the controls of activities can succeed only if they are appropriate to the different paths and conditions at various points along the Ridgeway. In some places, the existence of mechanised vehicles on the Ridgeway causes immense problems; in others, it does not. Local support, as well as the support of all the local authorities, is required if any arrangement is to work. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would encourage them, as I have done, to work together locally.

Robert Key: The Minister knows that Wiltshire county council has spent a great deal of time and money on the Ridgeway on behalf of our communities, but that the Ridgeway is only one example among many thousands of the extremely delicate heritage routes across our country. Does he agree that we must grasp the problem in a far more determined manner? It is not just about repairing damaged tracks and so on; it is about telling the people who use those tracks that they are as much a part of our heritage as a great building and that it is not appropriate to plough them up with motor vehicles, when we should be looking after them as though they were indeed national monuments.

Alun Michael: I warmly welcome what the hon. Gentleman says and encourage him and any of his constituents who care about the issues as he does to make their views known in response to the consultation that I recently launched on the use of motorised vehicles. I am receiving a lot of correspondence from Members of the House, but some correspondents suggest that there is no need to tackle the issue. The hon. Gentleman has illustrated why the consultation was necessary. Of course we need to examine carefully every opinion and piece of evidence that comes in, and I strongly encourage people to respond because I agree with him about the importance of the matter.

James Gray: The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the consultation period has already closed, so it might be too late for people to respond. None the less, does he agree that under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, there is a real risk that thousands of miles of RUPPS—roads used as public paths—are being reclassified as byways open to all traffic, which means that they will become permanently available for those scourges of the quiet enjoyment of the countryside: four-wheel-drive vehicles and motor cycles? Will he take steps to reclassify all byways open to all traffic as restricted byways throughout England, thereby preserving the peace and quiet of our rural lanes for all time?

Alun Michael: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the issue, and I hope that we will have his assistance and that of Opposition Members when we take forward the outcome of the consultation. Representations are still coming in and will be considered within the consultation—it is important that everyone has the opportunity to contribute. Given that there is something like a month to go on the consultation, I am pleased that the matter has been highlighted in the House today so that everyone, whatever their interest, will know about the consultation and contribute to it.

Fuel Poverty

David Taylor: What assessment she has made of the conclusions of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group regarding the funding provided for the warm front programme.

Margaret Beckett: We are grateful to the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group for its report and recommendations. Funding for the next financial year will be of the order of £150 million. Funding requirements beyond that will be decided as part of the 2004 spending round, taking into account representations by the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group and also the comments of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.

David Taylor: The Government have a statutory target to eradicate fuel poverty from vulnerable households by 2010, and the 2003 annual report of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, which is published today, recognises that significant progress has been made toward that target. However, it says that expenditure on programmes such as that to which my question refers needs to be upped by 50 per cent. in the coming years, especially to help the integration of Government Departments' activities, to focus on the private rented sector, to supply gas when possible and to give more measurable targets in the spending round. Is the Secretary of State hopeful that that will happen—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Enough.

Margaret Beckett: I think my hon. Friend's complaint was that it is not enough, Mr. Speaker.
	I simply say to my hon. Friend that we have read, and will study, the report with great interest. I recognise that the concerns that he expresses are contained in the report, and I am grateful to him for acknowledging how much progress has already been made. He knows that some of the concerns that we have identified to which we will need to give careful consideration are criticisms that not all the programme has been directed at the fuel poor. There is a distinction between people who are vulnerable—no one disputes their vulnerability—and those who are specifically fuel poor. We shall have to give careful consideration to all those issues.

Eric Forth: When considering this rather peculiar concept of fuel poverty, will the Secretary of State tell us how much consideration is given to the individual lifestyles and spending priorities of those who claim to be in fuel poverty? Does it not seem rather odd that we have a concept of so-called fuel poverty, but that we do not have one of food poverty or any other specific kind of poverty? How on earth can the scheme be made to work in isolation from individuals taking responsibility for their own spending priorities in their own households?

Margaret Beckett: I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is some 20 or 30 years since people were first able to identify the specific concept of fuel poverty, which is related not only to people's spending priorities but to the condition of their housing and the natural tendency, in a sense, for people who are especially vulnerable, such as the elderly and frail, to be those who live in poor, run-down housing. I assure him not only that a great deal of work has been done to identify the problem of fuel poverty, but that the Government have done much to address it and intend to do more.

Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that although many elderly people in my constituency and many other parts of the country have benefited from the programme, some of those most in need fear pressure from doorstep salesmen, because they do not distinguish one thing from another and are afraid that they might be conned into getting into debt, whereas the scheme is designed to help them?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes two important points. First, he is right that over 700,000 households have received assistance from the warm front scheme. Secondly, he is right to identify the concerns felt particularly by some elderly people. I shall take his remarks into account when we consider the design and communication of any new scheme.

Swill Feeders

Boris Johnson: If she will compensate previously licensed swill feeders.

Ben Bradshaw: No.

Boris Johnson: Given that feeding scraps to pigs is perfectly safe, environmentally friendly and has been going on ever since man domesticated animals; given that the 62 licensed swill feeders were encouraged by DEFRA to invest thousands of pounds in new equipment before the ban; and given that since the ban an extra 1.7 million tonnes of biodegradable stuff is being sent to landfill or washed down the sewers, is it not the Minister's duty, in all logic, to compensate those 62 licensed swill feeders or to lift that ridiculous and hysterical ban?

Ben Bradshaw: No. Such an act would be grossly irresponsible, as the cause of the £8 billion foot and mouth epidemic in this country related to exactly the practice that the hon. Gentleman is so keen to support.

George Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware that the problem was caused by one pig farmer, not all of them? As the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) rightly said, the vast majority of those farmers were operating on the advice of the Department and in a fit and proper manner, have never had any compensation and are being unfairly treated, compared to others. If the current investigation by the ombudsman finds that they have been unfairly treated, will he consider compensating them?

Ben Bradshaw: I do not intend to pre-empt what the parliamentary ombudsman may or may not say in response to my hon. Friend's doughty campaign on behalf the pig-swillers in his constituency, but it is not right to say that they have been treated unfairly. There is an enormous risk involved in the practice, which is why it has been banned not just in this country but across the whole of the European Union. It may have been the fault of only one irresponsible owner, but our strong scientific advice is that there is no need for the practice, and that the risk that we would be incurring by continuing with it, given the devastation caused by the foot and mouth outbreak, does not warrant a continuation of the practice.

Peter Tapsell: How does the Minister account for the fact that the plethora of new food regulations is outpaced only by the number of popular foods that we are almost weekly told it is unsafe for us to eat? Has thought been given to the possibility that the dangers of food poisoning, which are undoubtedly real, derive less from the farm-level producers, such as licensed swill dealers, than from the activities of international big business, such as the great pharmaceutical companies and, to take a recent example, the development of mass production of farmed salmon?

Ben Bradshaw: No.

Biofuels Industry

Norman Lamb: If she will make a statement on progress in developing a biofuels industry.

Alun Michael: Following the reduction in the duty rate for biodiesel introduced in July 2002, around 2 million litres of biodiesel are currently sold each month in the UK. Half of that comes from UK-sourced recycled vegetable oil. The remainder comes from finished product imported from elsewhere in Europe. The construction of the Argent plant near Motherwell will add a further 50 million litres annually to UK production.

Norman Lamb: I thank the Minister for his response. In view of the fact that the duty cut on bioethanol that comes into force next January will not give rise to any domestic production of bioethanol, will he support the amendment to the Energy Bill tabled in the House of Lords, as it would introduce a clear road transport fuel obligation?

Alun Michael: A number of companies are actively considering the production of biodiesel from, for example, UK-grown oilseed rape, and the Department for Transport will shortly consult on the UK's targets for the use of biofuels under the EU biofuels directive.

Sudden Oak Death

Desmond Swayne: What progress is being made in preventing the spread of sudden oak death.

Ben Bradshaw: We are continuing to survey and take eradication action against phytophthora ramorum, the cause of sudden oak death. Spending by DEFRA and the Forestry Commission has increased by approximately 50 per cent. on eradication, import control and research into this very worrying disease.

Desmond Swayne: Notwithstanding that increase in expenditure, the tenor of representations that I have received from nurserymen from the National Farmers Union and the New Forest Committee is that given the catastrophic effects of the disease, the Government's response has been complacent, at least in respect of imports. What can the Minister say to counter that criticism?

Ben Bradshaw: I reject it entirely. This Government, as I learned this week on a visit to California, the part of the world most severely affected by the disease, have acted more swiftly than any other Government, not just across the Atlantic but also in the European Union. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the seriousness of the disease, and we very much appreciate the co-operation we have had from the nursery industry. We are in discussion with it, and have been throughout. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has drawn the disease to the attention of the House, because it is not an exaggeration to say that it has the potential to be at least as devastating to our landscape as Dutch elm disease a generation ago.

Hugh Robertson: But it is not only oak trees that are under threat. The national orchard—the nation's supply of fruit trees—has declined by a staggering 25 per cent. since 1997. Bearing in mind the fact that those trees are good for the environment and that the people who farm them are unsubsidised and produce food that is good for the nation's diet, what steps is the Minister taking to encourage people to plant more fruit trees?

Ben Bradshaw: That has nothing to do with sudden oak death. There is no evidence, either here or in the United States, that fruit trees are susceptible to the disease.

Landfill Sites

Patsy Calton: What steps are being taken to tackle the effects of pollution from landfill sites.

Alun Michael: There are strict controls on landfill sites aimed at preventing or reducing any negative impact on the environment. In the spring, we will publish a review of the environmental and health effects of waste management, which brings together existing literature and evidence on the health and environmental effects of waste management, and will provide a valuable side-by-side comparison of different waste management options.

Patsy Calton: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he consider keeping a register of all sites containing materials harmful to human health, and make it a criminal offence to withhold information, whatever the source, about the tipping of such materials, either now or in the past?

Alun Michael: I am not sure what examples the hon. Lady is pointing to that are not already covered by controls on tipping. As she will understand, we are doing our best both to get a proper fix on the health impact and reduce the UK's reliance on landfill. If she has specific examples that she would like to draw to my attention one of my ministerial colleagues or I would be happy to respond.

Norman Baker: The Minister said that there are strict controls on landfill, but is he aware that in 2002 there were 285 major landfill pollution incidents? Only one in 200 incidents resulted in a fine for the operator, averaging just £6,000, which is a pittance to landfill operators. Is not the message from the Government that the polluter does not pay, and what is the Minister going to do about it?

Alun Michael: I have just suggested that we want a better informed understanding of the environmental effects of waste management and a reduction in the UK's reliance on landfill. The figures that the hon. Gentleman referred to are a matter of concern, and I can assure him that they are kept under review both by DEFRA and the Environment Agency.

Operation Gangmaster

Peter Luff: If she will make a statement on her Department's involvement in Operation Gangmaster.

Alun Michael: DEFRA staff are involved when required in Operation Gangmaster activities, on which the Department for Work and Pensions takes the lead.

Peter Luff: The Minister will know that there is concern that Operation Gangmaster is not an effective mechanism to deal with the activities of rogue gangmasters. Could he tell the House whether the Government intend to support the Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill, which is due for its Second Reading on Friday 27 February, or do they prefer more effective enforcement of the current regulatory regime? If it is the latter, they must put more effort into doing so.

Alun Michael: Results are coming out of the work. For example, the Department for Work and Pensions identified 235 overpayments and 1,023 adjustments to benefit worth £405,000, securing 138 sanctions and prosecutions. Figures show that the Inland Revenue's success in relation to unpaid tax and national insurance is worth £4.3 million. Steps are being taken that are producing results. However, I recognise hon. Members' interest in taking further measures to deal with gangmasters, and we are carefully considering, with colleagues in other Departments, the private Member's Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Business of the House

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Peter Hain: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 9 February—Second Reading of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill.
	Tuesday 10 February—Opposition Day [4th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "The State of the Environment" followed by a debate on local taxation. Both debates arise on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
	Wednesday 11 February—Motion to approve the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2004 followed by Opposition half-day [5th Allotted Day] (1st Part). There will be half-day debate entitled "Confusion Over the Powers of the Proposed Elected Regional Assemblies" on an Opposition motion.
	Thursday 12 February—Motion to approve a money resolution on the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill followed by a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the Official Report.
	The provisional business for the week after the half term week will be:
	Monday 23 February—Second Reading of a Bill.
	Tuesday 24 February—Motions relating the Draft Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 2004 and the Draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2004 followed by Opposition half-day [5th Allotted Day] (2nd Part). There will be a half-day debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Wednesday 25 February—Debate on the Report from the Privy Counsellor Review Committee on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
	Thursday 26 February—Motion to approve a money resolution on the Employment Relations Bill followed by a debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 27 February—Private Members' Bills.
	Following is the information:
	
		PAC REPORTS 2002–03
		
			 Report No Title of Report Publication Date 
			 1st Collecting the Television Licence Fee 18 Dec. 2002 
			 2nd Dealing with Pollution from Ships 9 Jan. 2003 
			 3rd Tobacco Smuggling 10 Jan. 2003 
			 4th Private Finance Initiative: Redevelopment of MOD main Building 30 Jan. 2003 
			 5th The 2001 Outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease 14 March 2003 
			 6th Ministry of Defence: Exercise Saif Sareea II 12 March 2003 
			 7th Excess Votes 2001–02 19 March 2003  
			 8th Excess Votes (Northern Ireland) 2001–02 19 March 2003 
			 9th The Office for National Statistics: Outsourcing the 2001 Census 26 March 2003 
			 10th Individual Learning Accounts 4 April 2003 
			 11th Facing the Challenge: NHS Emergency Planning in England 16 April 2003 
			 12th Tackling Pension Poverty: Encouraging Take-up of Entitlements 9 April 2003 
			 13th Ministry of Defence: Progress in Reducing Stocks 11 April 2003 
			 14th Royal Mint Trading Fund 2001–02 Accounts 17 April 2003 
			 15th OPRA: Tackling the Risks to Pension Scheme Members 2 May 2003 
			 16th Improving Public Services through Innovation: The Invest to Save Budget 9 May 2003 
			 17th Helping victims and witnesses: the work of Victim Support 8 May 2003 
			 18th Reaping the Rewards of Agricultural Research 16 May 2003 
			 19th The PFI contract for the redevelopment of West Middlesex University Hospital 6 June 2003 
			 20th Better public services through call centres 5 June 2003 
			 21st The operations of HM Customs and Excise in 2001–02 12 June 2003 
			 22nd PFI refinancing update 13 June 2003 
			 23rd Innovation in the NHS—the acquisition of the Heart Hospital 18 June 2003 
			 24th Community Legal Service:The Introduction of Contracting 20 June 2003 
			 25th Protecting the Public from Waste 25 June 2003 
			 26th Safety, quality, efficacy: regulating medicines in the UK 26 June 2003 
			 27th The management of substitution cover for teachers 26 June 2003 
			 28th Delivering better value for money from the Private Finance Initiative 19 June 2003 
			 29th Inland Revenue: Tax Credits and tax debt management 2 July 2003 
			 30th Department for International Development: Maximising impact in the Water Sector 3 July 2003 
			 31st Report Tackling Benefit Fraud 4 July 2003 
			 32nd The Highways Agency: Maintaining England's Motorways and trunk roads 11 July 2003 
			 33rd Ensuring the effective discharge of older patients from NHS acute hospitals 17 Sept. 2003 
			 34th The Office of Fair Trading: progress in protecting consumers' interests 9 July 2003 
			 35th PFI Construction Performance 16 July 2003 
			 36th Improving service quality: Action in response to the Inherited SERFS problem 17 July 2003 
			 37th Ministry of Defence: The Construction of nuclear submarine facilities at Devonport 10 Sept. 2003 
			 38th Department of Trade and Industry: Regulation of weights and measures 10 July 2003  
			 39th A safer place to work: Protecting NHS hospital and ambulance staff from violence and aggression 23 July 2003 
			 40th Improving social housing through transfer 24 July 2003 
			 41st Modernising procurement in the Prison Service 18 Sept. 2003 
			 42nd A safer work place to work: Improving the management of health and safety risks to staff in NHS Trusts 15 Oct. 2003 
			 43rd Fisheries enforcement in England 13 Nov. 2003 
			 44th New IT Systems for Magistrates Courts: The Libra project 11 Nov. 2003 
			 45th Protecting public health and consumer interests in relation to food: the Food Standards Agency 27 Nov. 2003 
			 46th Ministry of Defence: Building an air manoeuvre capability: the introduction of the Apache Helicopter 18 Nov. 2003 
			 47th Film Council: Improving access to, and education about, the moving image through the British Film Institute 4 Dec. 2003 
			 48th The Public Private Partnership for National Air Traffic Services Ltd 9 Dec. 2003 
			 49th The operational performance of PFI prisons 2 Dec. 2003

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the Doorkeepers and Badge Messengers in the Public Gallery for their speedy work in dealing with yesterday's disturbances?
	I was a bit surprised to see that on 23 February we are to have the "Second Reading of a Bill", particularly in the light of the Leader of the House's recent comments that the Opposition were not giving him enough notice of our business.
	The Leader of the House will be aware of the anxiety faced by the many thousands of people with Equitable Life pensions. Why are we still waiting for the publication of the Penrose report on the Treasury's regulation of that insurer? The Financial Secretary has said that the report is with the Treasury and that it will be published in full. Can the Leader of the House confirm that and tell us when?
	In yesterday's debate, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), a true parliamentarian, told us that although Lord Hutton cross-examined John Scarlett in public, the Foreign Affairs Committee was refused access to him; and that when the Committee requested drafts of the dossier, it was refused them, yet Lord Hutton put them on the world wide web. Is it not time for the Leader of the House to insist to his colleagues, not least the Prime Minister, that our Committees are properly treated?
	Lord Birt is an adviser to the Prime Minister. It seems that he has an office in the Cabinet Office, at public expense, that is so imposing that it even has its own staircase—yet he refuses to give evidence to the Public Administration Committee about his job. If his role is to make occasional speeches in support of the Prime Minister, as he did yesterday, should he not come along to the Committee and say so? Why should there be such secrecy and disrespect for Parliament? What will the Leader of the House do to strengthen our Committees?
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister told us that he did not realise, even on the eve of battle, that the 45-minute claim related only to battlefield weapons. On the face of it, he wrongly believed that our bases in Cyprus were at imminent risk of missile attack, just as the newspapers reported. Yet later in the debate, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who is in his place, and the Secretary of State for Defence told us that they knew that that was not true. Why did they not tell the Prime Minister? We need a Prime Minister's statement to clear that up. If he led us to war, falsely believing in an imminent risk that did not exist, and his senior Ministers knew that he was wrong, that is monumental incompetence. We are entitled and need to know what happened so that it never happens again.

Peter Hain: First, I endorse the thanks of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and add those of the whole House to the Doorkeepers for the speedy way in which they acted, as they always do. I am a great fan of theirs.
	On the Second Reading of a Bill, the hon. Gentleman is right that I normally try to give full details of the second week's business. However, we are considering a week after the half-term recess.

Eric Forth: So?

Peter Hain: The former shadow Leader of the House asks, "So?" in his normal, mischievous fashion. The answer is clear. If I were in a position to provide the information, I would have done that. As soon as I am in a position to give it—I hope that that will be at business questions next week—I shall do that. There will be an interval when the House is in recess when hon. Members can take the matter forward.

Eric Forth: Pathetic.

Peter Hain: It is not pathetic, but a sign of a Government who want to tell the House about the way in which their legislative programme is proceeding. We await news of progress in the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman would do better to start talking to his Tory friends and the hereditaries in the House of the Lords who continually try to delay Government legislation. Their record on scrutiny of Government legislation is pathetic, to use his word. The House of Commons has a much better record of scrutinising legislation than the House of Lords. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Luff, there is something wrong with you. You should not shout like that.

Peter Hain: On Equitable Life, the Treasury is studying the Penrose report, as I said previously. We will present an account to the House as soon as we can because many hon. Members and constituents are worried about the matter.
	Lord Hutton's report did not satisfy the Conservatives demand for blood in the Government. That is why they continue to complain about it. Conservative Front-Bench Members have displayed a certain ambiguity about whether they regard Lord Hutton's report as good and whether they respect his position as an impartial judge. Do they or do they not? We ought to know.
	On who was questioned in public for the Hutton report and who was questioned by the House Committees, I strongly agree that those Committees, including the Intelligence and Security Committee, should have access to all the intelligence. That Committee, together with Lord Hutton's inquiry, saw all the intelligence that there was to see. Both reviewed it and neither delivered the verdict that the Conservatives and their supporters in the media wanted, but that is a problem for them, not Lord Hutton or the Intelligence and Security Committee.
	As for strengthening Select Committees, the Prime Minister, who leads our Government, has appeared before the Liaison Committee, which comprises all the Chairmen of Select Committees, to answer questions on a range of issues. Our Prime Minister has been more accountable to Select Committees than any Prime Minister in the history of Parliament since Select Committees were established. I shall therefore take no lessons in accountability from the shadow Leader of the House. Indeed, we have strengthened Select Committees' resources and we encourage them to continue their work.
	On the question of Lord Birt, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I am awaiting the report and any recommendations and representations from the Liaison Committee over the Osmotherly rules and the position of officials—whether civil servants or special advisers—in their accountability or otherwise to Select Committees. I have promised the Liaison Committee that if I receive representations from it, I will look at them. That covers that point, except in this respect—Lord Birt is a former chief executive, a former director-general, of the BBC so it is absolutely right that he should say what he believes, particularly in the wake of the controversy in the BBC. Again, there is persistent mischief making.
	On the 45-minute issue, there is an unholy alliance between opponents of the war and the Conservatives and their allies in the media who supported the war. They are using the latest bandwagon to cause mischief and spread confusion on the issue. The truth is that all the intelligence, including on this matter, was available to Lord Hutton; all the intelligence, including on this matter, was available to the ISC. The Conservatives are now, through the prism of Andrew Gilligan's false "Today" programme report, trying to rewrite history. The truth is that Saddam Hussein, as we know from United Nations inspections and our own intelligence, possessed huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction over the years—[Interruption.] Yes he did, and even Leaders of the Conservative party are on record as having said that. The former Leader of the Conservative party is consistently on record as being persuaded of that, as is the party's current leader.
	Finally on that matter, the key issue is whether we support the toppling of Saddam Hussein—with the destruction that he imposed on Iraq, including with weapons of mass destruction—or not. We are very clear on that matter; is the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire?

Paul Tyler: May I urge—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr Fabricant, your behaviour is intolerable. It is not acceptable.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
	May I urge the Leader of the House to consider the need for a full statement of clarification from the Prime Minister on the real remit of the Butler committee? In answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) on Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary quite clearly said that any concern about the mishandling of intelligence
	"was dealt with comprehensively by Lord Hutton"—[Official Report, 3 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 631.]
	and must therefore be excluded from the remit of the Butler inquiry.
	Last night in the other place, several very senior Conservative peers took up that point. For example, Lord King of Bridgwater, who was Secretary of State for Defence during the first Gulf war, said:
	"The terms of reference are obviously most important. Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who is a member of the Cabinet: what do the Government intend those terms of reference should be? I hope that in responding . . . he will have a good, clear government answer to that question. I shall press on my colleagues the question of the continuing participation of the Conservative Party in the inquiry if we cannot be clear about the agreement we have reached."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 February 2004; Vol. 657, c. 706.]
	The Lord Chancellor's answer, which I must give in its totality—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members that these exchanges are on the business for next week. Also, I am expecting brief supplementary questions. Please try to paraphrase.

Paul Tyler: I shall be as brief as I can, and much briefer than other participants. The Lord Chancellor said that his
	"right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear that the terms of reference exclude ground already so thoroughly covered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. I do not think that any of us wants the report to go over the ground that has already been covered. It has been made absolutely clear that it excludes any consideration of whether the Government were justified in taking military action. That conclusion, which has been accepted by the Conservatives, is not a matter for a committee".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 February 2004; Vol. 657, c. 790.]
	There were further exchanges—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman should try again next week, just before we have a break.

Paul Tyler: rose—

Mr. Speaker: No, this is not good enough. I call the Leader of the House.

Peter Hain: I am not surprised by the hon. Gentleman's question, because he and his leader have been seeking to distance themselves from the inquiry from the beginning, in contradistinction to the Conservative party, to which I pay credit in that regard. The inquiry's terms of reference are crystal clear. They are to study all the intelligence involved in the background to the decision. That is a separate mandate from that of the Hutton report, and the inquiry under Lord Butler will proceed as everyone has described.

Tony Wright: On days like yesterday, when we are discussing huge issues of public importance and vast numbers of Members across the House want to speak, is it sensible to curtail the debate on an Adjournment motion at 7 o'clock, when most Members would have liked it to continue for longer? If such debates are to be curtailed, surely we could at least have a system whereby people knew whether they had some chance of being called.

Peter Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns on this matter, but I am implementing the rules of the House, in relation, for example, to the time limit on speeches. which the Speaker imposed in order to allow more people to participate. My hon. Friend is saying that we should go past the moment of interruption in certain debates—[Hon. Members: "Yes."] Well, the difficulty with that is that there will always be special pleading for all sorts of different Bills—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must give the Leader of the House the courtesy of being allowed to reply. Please bear in mind that I have the power to stop these questions if this goes on. We must allow the Leader of the House to answer the questions put to him.

Peter Hain: I am grateful to you for that, Mr. Speaker, although frankly, Opposition Members' heckles are easy meat to deal with.
	The difficulty for a Leader of the House, as I am sure will be understood more widely, is that there will always be pleas for extensions to debates on this or that issue. Of course I acknowledge that the Hutton report is a very important issue, but exactly the same representations were made to me in respect of the Higher Education Bill—[Interruption.] They were, and lots of people wanted to get in on that debate but were unable to do so. There could be another Bill like that next week. I see the Conservatives nodding vigorously, as they usually do on these issues, but when they were in government they faced exactly the same prospects. Under the new hours—if that is the issue here—we have more time to scrutinise legislation and more time when the House is sitting than we had under the old hours.

Angela Browning: Can we have an urgent debate on ministerial accountability to the House? I was fortunate enough to secure a debate on roads in Tiverton and Honiton at 5.30 last Thursday evening, when the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), the Minister responsible for roads, in responding to my request for the long overdue south-west area multi-modal study—SWARMMS—report to be produced, said:
	"The work has taken longer than we expected but it is nearing completion."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 28 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 134WH.]
	The very next morning, I was informed by the BBC, who had phoned the Department for Transport, that the Department had given the BBC the answer and the report is now out. However, I have heard absolutely nothing from the Minister. That is outrageous. It is a contempt of hon. Members for a Minister to come to the Floor of the House at 5.30 in the evening and give me, a Member of Parliament, that kind of response when, the very next morning, he was able to tell the BBC that the report would be out the following week, which it was. That is quite disgraceful.

Peter Hain: The Minister will obviously want to look very carefully indeed at the statement that the hon. Lady has made to the House. I congratulate her on securing that debate last week on this important issue for her constituency, and I understand that there is another debate next week in which these matters could be addressed.

Robin Cook: May I invite my right hon. Friend to tell me when it might be appropriate for us to explore the exchanges in the winding-up speech last night, which came at the end of the debate? In the light of those exchanges, I want to tell the House that I knew that Iraq had only battlefield weapons because I asked the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee. I have the highest respect for his professionalism. Is it not hard to credit that, at no point between the September dossier and the March debate, did he explain to the Prime Minister the crucial distinction between battlefield weapons and medium-range weapons? Is it not equally difficult to believe that the Prime Minister's security adviser, Sir David Manning, never thought to ask? When I was Leader of the House, I sometimes found it necessary after these exchanges to consult a Whitehall Department and advise it that it should clarify a public statement. May I urge my right hon. Friend that, today, it might be helpful if he were to give that advice to Downing street?

Peter Hain: I know—and my right hon. Friend, having occupied my position before me, will know —that Downing street pays particular attention to business questions, and his point will be noted.

Paul Keetch: The Leader of the House will be aware of the problems caused in Wales by flooding, but is he aware of the chaos that was caused in the city of Hereford last night by the River Wye flooding? It caused gridlock on the roads. Roads had to be closed, a bridge had to be closed, OAP homes had to be evacuated and many homes were flooded. Given that we have been campaigning for a flood defence scheme for the Wye for many years, and that the Government expect a report fairly soon, when may we have a debate in Government time on the Government's flood defence programme generally, and specifically for the city of Hereford?

Peter Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns in respect of his constituency and in particular that city. The devastation wreaked by the flooding has been dreadful. In my own constituency, in Pontardawe in the Swansea valley there has been the same impact, which for local residents has obviously been a nightmare. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is monitoring the situation closely, together with the Environment Agency. All steps necessary are being taken to improve the situation, and lessons will be learned. If the hon. Gentleman has further representations, I know that my right hon. Friend will welcome them.

Clive Soley: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at the proposals I made to him some weeks ago to continue the reforms in this place and to build on the success of the Westminster Hall forum—a success about which I am particularly pleased? Those proposals include using it in such a way that Members of this House could question Ministers who are in the House of Lords, but in a forum in this part of the House, and also question European Union Commissioners? Those are just two more proposals that we should be considering to improve our procedures.

Peter Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the Westminster Hall debates have been a huge success.

Eric Forth: No.

Peter Hain: I say to the former shadow Leader of the House, tell that to all the Members—including the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who has just raised such an issue—who have had opportunities to have their constituency issues addressed and to hold Ministers accountable. It has been a big success, notwithstanding the anachronistic comments from the right hon. Gentleman.
	The questions of European Union Commissioners and House of Lords Ministers are matters that the Modernisation Committee will look at very carefully. However, precedents could be set by such appearances, which we would have consider very carefully, not just in the Modernisation Committee but doubtless with the Procedure Committee and others involved.

George Young: In a reflective interview with The Times last Saturday, entitled "Perma-tan Hain sees light at end of dark days", the Leader of the House expressed bitter disappointment that No. 10 had scuppered his party's policy on the House of Lords. In relation to the business of the House, he is quoted as saying:
	"But I think there is a head of steam on this which will enable us to look forward."
	If there is that head of steam, surely we need a debate in order to build on the momentum.

Peter Hain: As for the perma-tan, I am afraid I cannot do anything about that, but I shall pass on my African roots and see if that helps the right hon. Gentleman.
	With regard to No. 10 scuppering policy, that was the spin by The Times on the situation. The truth is that, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, I voted for a 100 per cent. elected second Chamber, and then subsequently down the steps until the whole issue fell. However, the House did not agree on any option. I would like to see— and the Government are consulting upon, as the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has made perfectly clear—a later stage of reform. In the meantime, we have an absolutely crucial job to do, which is to get rid of the hereditary peers from the second Chamber and have an independent system of appointment.
	I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are now in a position in which we have fewer votes in the House of Lords than Cross-Benchers—

Eric Forth: Good.

Peter Hain: We also have fewer votes than the Conservatives.
	The right hon. Gentleman says "Good", because he wants to use an unelected Chamber to defeat the policies of an elected House of Commons, acting on the mandate of a general election manifesto—and a landslide mandate at that.
	What will be interesting in the whole debate is to see where the Conservative party is on this matter. The Conservatives in the Lords voted overwhelmingly for a fully appointed second Chamber, but the Conservative leadership in the Commons appears to support an elected element. There is an element of hypocrisy and opportunism here, but as the debate unfolds we shall find out more.

John Lyons: My right hon. Friend will know that this year we celebrate 10 years of the Fairtrade Mark, and we have a Fairtrade fortnight coming up, from 1 March to 14 March. Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate to let us discuss the very practical and important ways in which the Fairtrade Mark can help the poor countries of the third world?

Peter Hain: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's work on this issue. It is important now that the House recognises Fairtrade goods. I should like to see them marketed and sold as widely as possible. The Government are strongly behind the whole Fairtrade movement and are pressing for trade justice. We have promoted and supported it in the World Trade Organisation negotiations, and we shall also continue to press within the European Union against protectionism by the EU.

Alex Salmond: May we have an urgent debate on the question of safety at sea, given that the new fishing regulations mean that for boats caught on 15 days there is no allowance for force majeure, so that if a boat goes to help another boat it loses fishing time and if a boat heaves to in a storm it loses fishing time? Before every fishing debate we pay tribute to those who lose their lives in the most dangerous profession of all. We have never before passed legislation to jeopardise safety at sea. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate? Will be contact the appropriate Minister and have this situation changed?

Peter Hain: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to fishermen, who, as he says, do a most dangerous job. We depend enormously upon them.
	The hon. Gentleman has raised some very important issues, which I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to study very carefully before deciding how to proceed in respect of discussion in the House. The hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to apply for a debate in the normal way.

Anne Campbell: Has the Modernisation Committee given any consideration to moving private Members' Bills to Tuesday evenings? That would make them much more accessible for those of us who have fairly active constituency engagements on a Friday.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which has been put to me in the extensive consultations that I am undertaking on the review that the Modernisation Committee will be conducting on the hours. Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, are putting quite a strong argument to do precisely as she says, and have all of the Fridays as constituency days and deal with private Members' Bills on Tuesday evenings. That would meet some hon. Members' concerns about the matter.
	I hope that over the coming months we can reach a consensus on the hours issue. I do not want to see the clock rolled back. On the other hand, I want the House to be in a position in which it is comfortable with the arrangements, rather than there being a deep division on the hours question. If we can find a way through this, and if people can talk to each other and—dare I say?—even negotiate with each other, I am confident we can deal with the problem.

David Heathcoat-Amory: At Foreign Office questions, I asked about unrestricted immigration from the EU accession states after 1 May, and whether the Government still stood by their estimate of between 5,000 and 13,000 a year. In reply, the Minister for Europe ignored my question and launched into a rant about rancid hate campaigns—but since then the Prime Minister has announced a change of policy. Will the Leader of the House first, inform the Foreign Office about what No. 10 is now thinking on this matter, and secondly, organise an urgent debate, because it is getting very late in the day to make difficult and sensitive changes about entitlements to benefits before 1 May?

Peter Hain: I appreciate the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister addressed them very directly yesterday. Our decision on the whole matter must be within an overall policy of managed migration, keeping a firm control on illegal migration, wherever it is from, and illegal workers, while welcoming legal migrants, whom our economy needs, as the right hon. Gentleman will recognise.
	There are many safeguards in place already, including safeguards on benefit entitlement. We are looking at these matters afresh, to see how we can best protect our national interests, but in a way that allows key workers to be recruited to fill urgent skills gaps in the economy.

Mark Tami: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see the recent report on unemployment published by the Library, which shows sharp falls in unemployment since 1997, and in the case of Alyn and Deeside, a fall of more than 36 per cent? Can he arrange for an urgent debate on unemployment, and in particular, contrast our record with the appalling record of the Conservative party?

Peter Hain: That is an excellent idea. The truth is that not only in my hon. Friend's constituency, which I have had the privilege to visit on a number of occasions, including with him, but in the constituencies of every Member of the House, unemployment has fallen dramatically under this Government. Employment has risen, and the economy is now in a stronger state than it has been in for generations. That is the policy that we will continue to promote, and that is why we are confident of winning an election, whenever it comes.

Martin Smyth: Can the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to explain to the House the policy on vetting overseas workers, particularly those entering the health field, in the light of the arrest this week of one at least in Belfast who has been linked with al-Qaeda?

Peter Hain: Obviously, this matter is being closely studied and acted on by the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the security authorities. It is a very important issue. Other Members have raised such issues in the past, which is why we are seeking to promote a policy that is tough on such matters, and that ensures that potential terrorists in particular are not taking advantage of our services.

Peter Bradley: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an urgent debate on the significance in shaping opinion both inside and outside the House of the intelligence about the 45 minutes launch capacity? If so, we will be able to consider why, between the publication of the dossier and the Gilligan broadcast—an eight-month period—it was mentioned only once on the Floor of the House, why in 43,000 oral and written questions it was referred to only twice, and why in the eight-month period it was referred to by the national press only 109 times, since the Gilligan broadcast, whereas it has been mentioned thousands on thousands of times.

Peter Hain: As my hon. Friend knows, the Gilligan broadcast was completely false, as the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday. He has made a very important point. In all the intelligence that I saw, the much broader picture, which has been repeatedly endorsed not just by successive Foreign Secretaries, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), but by the Leader of the Opposition and the former Leader of the Opposition, is that Saddam Hussein, over the years, possessed weapons of mass destruction, posed a threat in terms of his capabilities, and had used those weapons against his own people in the Kurdish north and against the Iranians. In respect of the question of battlefield nuclear weapons and biological and chemical warfare, Members of the House will remember Halabja, where more than 5,000 people died and many more were injured and had their lives disfigured for ever by the use of precisely those kinds of weapons.
	We should be careful before we say that one form of delivery system is not a problem but others pose an enormous threat. The truth is that Saddam was a menace to his people, a menace to the region and a menace to the world, and the fact that he has gone is good for all of us.

Patrick Cormack: As the Leader of the House has rightly and generously proclaimed his support for the Badge Messengers and Doorkeepers, and as they are even more attached to their traditional uniform than Lord Birt to his new staircase, will he give them an assurance that he will not attempt to strip them?

Peter Hain: I will certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, and I welcome his points. I have many friends among the Doorkeepers, and they are an admirable group of gentlemen and servants of the House.

Hon. Members: And ladies!

Stephen McCabe: I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my satisfaction at the attention that the Government have focused on the scourge of antisocial behaviour and the raft of measures introduced to tackle it. What of local authorities and other agencies, however, which do not use the law, which can take more than six weeks to remove an abandoned car, or which seek to hide behind the Data Protection Act 1998 rather than acting to protect poor, downtrodden members of the public? Can we have a debate to monitor the implementation of the legislation and to consider what needs to be done to hold those agencies to account and give proper redress to those members of the public who deserve protection under the law?

Peter Hain: Before I answer that question, I want to acknowledge that I missed out the fact that there is a lady Doorkeeper, and I hope that there are more.
	My hon. Friend raises a concern that all Members share, certainly on the Labour Benches. Our communities are disfigured by antisocial behaviour: graffiti, neighbours from hell, and intimidating yobs on estates and in the streets. The police and other agencies now have the weapons and the methods to deal with that, and often they are not being applied. That is my hon. Friend's point, I strongly support him on it, and I hope that the message goes out loud and clear that the House has passed legislation on this matter—often without the support of the Opposition, I might add—and we expect it to be acted on.

Edward Garnier: Can we have an early debate in Government time on air and rail transport in the east midlands? This is a matter of considerable interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and me, and to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). East Midlands airport is increasing the number of freight flights at night, which will cause huge disturbance to our collective constituents. I also draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention the parlous record of Midland Mainline, the railway company, which has decided to avoid calling at Market Harborough station in order to catch up on its timetable. Can we have a debate at the earliest possible opportunity, so that those two highly important east midlands transport issues can be dealt with?

Peter Hain: I know that the Secretary of State for Transport will want to look carefully into the hon. and learned Gentleman's points, which are clearly important for his constituency, for those of the other Members whom he mentioned, and for the whole east midlands area. I have been to East Midlands airport; it is a fine airport, and I hope that it continues to go from strength to strength.

Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the television viewing figures for this place are on the increase, particularly during Prime Minister's Question Time. Does he share my concern, however, about the increased number of questions to the Prime Minister, from all sections of the House, that are of a local nature and that are not directly the responsibility of the Prime Minister? Does he believe that that is a good use of Prime Minister's Question Time, a half hour per week, in which the Prime Minister should be asked questions on a national and international level and not on local matters?

Peter Hain: I agree that the House is increasingly being viewed as more and more people get access to the broadcasting of Parliament. That is good for democracy.

Chris Bryant: It is the hours.

Peter Hain: It may well be the hours that are responsible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) says. Very few people will want to watch the House at 2 am, when the former shadow Leader of the House wants us to be sitting. I welcome that, because it is good for democracy. I must disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan), however, because Members have the right to raise any question that they like with the Prime Minister, whether it is local, international or national. I must protect that right.

Nigel Dodds: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 553, on the future of the police reserve in Northern Ireland?
	[That this House notes the contribution made by members of the full-time Police Reserve to the security of people in Northern Ireland; calls upon the Government to end immediately the speculation over the future of the Reserve; and further calls for embers of the Reserve to be granted the right to lateral entry into the ranks of the Police Service in Northern Ireland.]
	As he knows, this is not a devolved matter but a matter reserved to this place. Knowing the tremendous contribution of the full-time reserve to policing in Northern Ireland, can he arrange for an early debate or a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to end the speculation about the future of the police reserve and to ensure that it continues for the benefit of the entire community in Northern Ireland?

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Northern Ireland questions are next Wednesday, so he can put exactly that point to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he catches the Speaker's eye.

John Smith: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 267, on the Montreal convention?
	[That this House notes with regret that the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, which replaces the Warsaw Convention (1929) and came into force in 32 countries on 4th November 2003, fails to provide air travellers with the same basic rights and protection in law as any other transport users by restating the unique legal exemption given to airlines in Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention which removes any responsibility whatsoever for the health or psychological well-being of their passengers; recognises that this will do nothing to discourage the unsafe and unhealthy practice of cramming passengers into ever smaller aircraft seats with reduced leg room; and calls on her Majesty's Government to seek through the European Union to amend the Montreal Convention by replacing the term 'accident' with 'incident' and 'bodily injury' with 'personal injury' before ratification, thus placing the same duty of care on airlines as all other passenger carriers and almost certainly reducing the incidence of deep vein thrombosis amongst air travellers.]
	If this convention is ratified by all the member states of the European Union, it will renew the unique and absurd exemption that airlines enjoy in having no liability whatever or duty of care for the health or psychological well-being of their passengers. Given that the vast majority of the travelling public are completely unaware of the uninsured risk when they board an airplane, may we have an early debate to increase public awareness of that important issue?

Peter Hain: I acknowledge the persistence with which my hon. Friend has campaigned. His vigilance is welcome to all concerned. The Government look forward to the coming into force of the Montreal convention because it will significantly enhance the rights of air passengers. We have no plans at present to propose any changes.

Paul Goodman: When we went to war, the Secretary of State for Defence apparently knew that there was no threat to our bases in Cyprus but the Prime Minister believed that there was a threat. Following the question of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and given that the Leader of the House says we can ask the Prime Minister questions about local matters, should not the Prime Minister come to the House today to explain, in respect of an urgent national matter, exactly what went wrong?

Peter Hain: The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary appeared before the House yesterday to answer all the questions that could have been put to them and were put to them. The Defence Secretary appeared before the Defence Committee only this morning, answering precisely that type of question.

Ann Cryer: May we have a debate on the introduction to the Bradford district of the extended schools childcare pilot in April? That scheme will use mainly existing facilities and seek to provide good quality, affordable child care for pre-school and out-of-school children in assisting all parents into work. Such a debate might encourage the local authority to work with the Government on that scheme. Voluntary organisations throughout the district will help, and I know that many of my constituents welcome the scheme.

Peter Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that scheme to the attention of us all. I am sure that the Government will want to consider promoting that admirable Sure Start plus-type scheme elsewhere. Sure Start schemes have been among the most successful projects introduced by the Government in seeking to address the problems and hurdles faced by vulnerable and deprived children—especially in single-parent families—and by those from ethnic minorities, with whom my hon. Friend works particularly closely. I hope that the pilot scheme will serve as a model for elsewhere.

Ian Lucas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great successes of this Government is their policy of introducing draft legislation—and that its increased use in recent times might have avoided some of the little local difficulties that have occurred? What plans does my right hon. Friend have to take forward further draft legislation? Why is it that all Bills cannot be introduced initially in draft?

Peter Hain: Some Bills—those relating to Northern Ireland being a classic example—arise urgently and have to be dealt with quickly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was a pioneer—and we are indebted to him—in taking Bills forward on a pre-legislative basis. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that draft Bills can be scrutinised, improved and amended. We are introducing 13 draft Bills—the highest number in the history of the House of Commons. I am sure that each of those 13 measures will be improved and that as a result, greater consent will be obtained and the views of Back-Bench Labour Members especially can be heard more than they have been in the recent past.

Adrian Flook: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Highways Agency has published its technical report on the relative merits of dualling either the A358 or the A303 in Somerset. Given the sensitivity attached to the dualling of any road, particularly in an area of outstanding natural beauty, does the Leader of the House agree that there should be a debate on dualling roads?

Peter Hain: I am not intimately acquainted with the dualling of the roads concerned, but I understand the importance of that matter to the hon. Gentleman, other local Members of Parliament, and their constituents. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Transport will study closely what the hon. Gentleman has to say, if he is successful in obtaining the opportunity to speak on that subject next week.

Paul Flynn: When can the House debate the tragic consequences of the use of seroxat? We know now that the manufacturers of that drug suppressed research findings. One of the awful consequences of seroxat, proved in court cases in America and in cases in this country, is that it so modifies the behaviour of its users that in a number of instances they have taken their own lives and those of their families. This is a clear case of manufacturers putting greed before safety.

Peter Hain: There is widespread debate about the status and role of seroxat. My hon. Friend vigilantly scrutinises all such drugs and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Health will examine closely my hon. Friend's remarks.

Roy Beggs: Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to read the exclusive article headed "Dirty Tricks" in yesterday's Evening Standard? It appears that an attempt is being made to hype up a row over Northern Ireland's participation in the Olympic games. Will the right hon. Gentleman make time as soon as possible for the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to come to the House to give a reassurance that in the event of a successful Olympic bid by London, all regions of the United Kingdom will have the opportunity to share the benefits—and that Northern Ireland's opportunities will not be sabotaged by some Irish attempt to restrict Northern Ireland's participation?

Peter Hain: As Secretary of State for Wales and a Member of Parliament representing a Welsh constituency, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport made it clear, when she announced the Olympic bid, that all regions of the United Kingdom would have the opportunity to take advantage of the opportunities—and that should apply to Northern Ireland as much as to Wales or anywhere else. After all, Northern Ireland has produced some fantastic athletes—most notably, Mary Peters.

Rob Marris: The new sitting hours have made it more difficult for visitors from constituencies such as mine, in the west midlands. What discussions, if any, has my right hon. Friend had with the House authorities about establishing a reception centre for visitors, to improve the facilities available to them?

Peter Hain: I am very much a champion of visitors to the House. When I was first elected nearly 13 years ago, I was absolutely appalled at the shabby way in which we used to treat visitors—and to some extent still do. Visitors, other than foreigners, elect us and they should be welcome here. This is their House of Commons and their Parliament. For that precise reason, I was discussing the other day with the Chairman of the Administration Committee how reception facilities for visitors could be improved. I am confident that we can move forward and that right hon. and hon. Members will shortly have a chance to consider how the situation can be improved using a new infrastructure that treats visitors properly, so that they do not have to queue in the rain to see us and encounter a positive welcome instead of a "no entry" sign.

Henry Bellingham: Did the Leader of the House hear the Secretary of State for Defence speaking on the "Today" programme this morning? He talked about battlefield nuclear weapons and strategic systems and said that he had not seen headlines in The Sun and Evening Standard that appeared at the time. Is there not a case for a debate on the competence of Government press officers and an argument for discussing whether or not there should be a return to old-fashioned independent Government press officers—rather than the hacks from Millbank who now advise Ministers?

Peter Hain: That is a weapon of mass distraction from the hon. Gentleman. The Defence Secretary presumably answered questions on that matter in the Select Committee this morning. For the life of me, I have no idea how anybody can get uptight about a busy Secretary of State such as my right hon. Friend not remembering which newspaper he read nearly 18 months ago.

David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend consider an urgent debate on the administration process and, in particular, the role of the administrator? A company in my constituency that is well known to certain people, Lister-Petter, has just been through the administration process. It appears that the administrator has chosen to favour some creditors at the cost of employees, the pension fund and other creditors. Is that matter not worthy of an urgent debate and some change in accountability?

Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will want to consider that carefully. My hon. Friend will have a chance to raise it at Question Time next week, but it certainly needs consideration.

Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House be a lot more forthcoming about the Penrose report on Equitable Life? He will know, as we all do, that many of our constituents are very concerned. Will he give an undertaking that the report will be issued in full, unedited and unexpurgated, that it will be issued very soon, and—just as important—that there will be a full debate on the Floor of the House on Penrose and everything relating to Equitable Life, so that our constituents can be satisfied that everything is being done to get at the truth? That applies not least to the issue of compensation, if it arises as a result of the inquiries into Equitable Life.

Peter Hain: I agree that this is a crucial issue. Having been in Government himself, the right hon. Gentleman will understand that we must get this right—it is a complex matter, especially if the question of compensation arises—and I am sure he understands that we would rather take a little time to do that than rush into it prematurely. I know that people are anxious for this to be dealt with as a matter of urgency, though, and having noted that anxiety, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will no doubt want to act on it.

Richard Burden: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at a report published today by the International Development Committee on development assistance in the occupied Palestinian territories? It reveals levels of poverty in some parts of the occupied territories that are equivalent to those in sub-Saharan Africa, and mentions the particularly severe humanitarian impact of the wall being constructed by Israel. There are 176 signatures, from Members in all parts of the House, to early-day motion 407.
	[That this House calls on Israel to cease immediately the building of its Separation Wall deep within Palestinian territory, which, according to the preliminary analysis by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs of maps published by the Israeli Government, will be 687 km long and will leave more than 274,000 Palestinians living in 122 villages and towns either surrounded by the Wall or trapped between the Wall and Israel's internationally recognised borders, some even requiring permits from Israel to continue living in their own homes; notes that the analysis estimates that a further 400,000 Palestinians living east of the Wall will be separated from their farms, jobs, markets, hospitals and schools, and that the Wall will have 'severe humanitarian consequences' for 30 per cent, of the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank; contrasts this with the fact that UN figures reveal that 54 Israeli settlements in the West Bank and 63 per cent, of settlers will be on the side of the wall next to Israel, giving Israel control over the richest agricultural land and the aquifer system which provides much of the West Bank's water resources; further notes that the Wall is made up of concrete, razor wire and electronic fences, trenches, motion sensors, guard towers and security roads, that it costs $4.7 million per kilometre and that it violates articles 53 and 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Britain is a high-contracting party, which forbids the destruction of property and confinement of persons by an occupier; welcomes the decision of the International Court of Justice to open hearings into the legal consequences of the construction of the Wall; further notes that, whilst Israel needs security, the Wall does not follow internationally recognised borders; insists that it does not become a de facto border for a future Palestinian state; further notes that only a reinvigorated peace process with full international support will stop the violence on both sides, not an 8 metre high wall; and calls on the British Government to bring all available pressure to bear on Israel to cease building this Wall].
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for a debate on the Select Committee's recommendations, and also on what we in this country should do about the position in the occupied territories, not just what we should say?

Peter Hain: I agree that the report published today is extremely welcome. It identifies the desperate situation of the Palestinians—one of the most desperate in the world, as my hon. Friend says, and one that must be addressed. If I were a Back Bencher I would have signed his early-day motion, because it reflects a view that is widespread in the House that the injustice done to the Palestinians must end and that the wall is an abomination—and, ironically, an obstacle not just to Palestinian justice and the erection of a viable independent Palestinian state but to Israel's security, because it perpetuates tension between the two peoples. What we want is a secure Israeli state and an independent Palestinian state working together and economically interdependent, as they will always be.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the Leader of the House speak to the Secretary of State for Scotland about the long title of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill, which will have its Second Reading next week? As things stand it is drawn exceptionally tightly, and will not permit discussion in Committee of any amendments relating to the electoral system employed, which is what Scottish Members and their constituents want to be discussed. Surely it is wrong for them to be frustrated in their wish because of this narrow drafting.

Peter Hain: I know that there is widespread anxiety in Scotland about the electoral system there, as indeed there is in Wales: I can say that from personal experience. The hon. Gentleman will be able to raise the issue on Monday, and I am sure the Secretary of State for Scotland will welcome that, but I do not think that widening the long title, which is quite specific, is the best way of dealing with the question of parliamentary boundaries. I am sure the issue will arise on Monday, however, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his points then.

Keith Vaz: May I press for a debate on the concessions that the Government are giving the member-designate countries that will join the European Union on 1 May? My right hon. Friend will know from his former role as Minister for Europe that Britain is the champion of enlargement. The Government's change of heart will cause concern in the applicant countries as they prepare to take the important step of joining the EU. If we have a debate, we will at least be able to clarify the Government's position.

Peter Hain: As my hon. Friend's successor as Minister for Europe, I know that these issues—with which we have both had to deal—are very difficult to resolve, because the rights and interests of the applicant countries must also be borne in mind. That is why the Prime Minister has been determined to get this right and consider any concerns that have recently arisen, and why he said what he did yesterday.
	We should remember that exactly the same concerns were expressed in relation to the entry into the EU of poor countries such as Greece, Spain and Portugal years ago. Some 150,000 migrant workers in France went back to their homes in Spain after its accession. Spain had a chance to become prosperous, trade with Spain increased, and both Britain and Spain benefited. I believe that after this interregnum we shall see exactly the same prospect for eastern and central European countries.

Bob Spink: Could the Leader of the House find more time than he has allowed today for a debate on local government finance, so that we can review the performance of Castle Point borough council? Under its new Tory control it has produced a prudent, low-rise budget with strengthened reserves, which shows what a difference good Tory councillors such as Jeffrey Stanley can make.

Peter Hain: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the business motion provided for extra time. As for good Tory councils—I have encountered no good Tory councils, as it happens, although I have encountered many good Labour councils—on present trends Labour councils are set to introduce smaller council tax increases, certainly a lot smaller than those of Tory councils and a lot smaller than those of Liberal Democrat councils as well. That shows the people of Britain that they are better off with a Labour council. They should think about that when they vote on 10 June.

Wayne David: May we have a debate as soon as possible on the extent of digital television coverage? The south Wales valleys are particularly poorly served at present.

Peter Hain: As I too represent a south Wales valley, I know that this is an important issue. I have discussed it with BBC Wales, and I had a brief conversation with Greg Dyke, the former BBC director general, who was keen to promote digital television in Wales because of his interest in Welsh matters. During the past year I have been fortunate enough to acquire a digital television box in the Neath valley. We need to find out how we can extend coverage to other valleys.

Michael Jack: A few weeks ago I suggested to the Leader of the House that we should have a debate on the defence White Paper. He embraced the suggestion with enthusiasm, recognising that the document contained uncertainties, especially for aerospace workers in the north-west. May I ask him to renew that enthusiasm, and tell the House when he expects such a debate to take place?

Peter Hain: I am not in a position to give a precise date. I do share the enthusiasm for a debate on the White Paper and there will be one, but that does not mean that I acknowledge or agree with the right hon. Gentleman's points.

Chris Bryant: May we have a regular European business questions session on the Floor of the House? Ministers—not just the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe—go to Brussels and to Council meetings all over Europe every month, and sign up to things on behalf of this country. We have very few opportunities to question them directly. May we have a regular session, not just the chance to ask the Minister for Europe a one-off question that may or may not end up on the Order Paper for Foreign Office questions?

Peter Hain: That is an important point. I agree with the thrust of it, which is why I have asked the Modernisation Committee to look at the whole issue of how European matters are discussed, not just in Committee—although the European Scrutiny Committee does a fantastic job—but on the Floor of the House. I think we should have more opportunities to debate them there. Our constituents would benefit, and Members would be better informed and thus better able to hold to account those responsible for what is done in Brussels.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Government published the Hutton report with commendable speed, but there is real and growing concern about publication of the Penrose report, which the Government received before Christmas—more than a month ago. Will the Leader of the House be a little more open with the House about when it will be published?

Peter Hain: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but he will understand that the Hutton report was commissioned at the end of July and reported only recently; we are not looking at such a time scale. As I said earlier, we are ensuring that we get things right, and when we do the hon. Gentleman will doubtless welcome that as much as everybody else.

David Burnside: Will the Leader of the House find time for a full debate on the future of low-cost airline travel—I declare at least a partial interest in this issue—in the European Union? A decision was taken this week against Ryanair—a low-cost, free-enterprise airline—in respect of the French Government's campaign, in conjunction with Air France, to take away the subsidy for regional airports. If that is allowed to happen across the European Union, it will herald the end of low-cost airline travel in the EU. This is a very serious development, which will change the face of air travel for UK regional airports such as Luton and Stansted. This matter deserves a full debate in the House.

Peter Hain: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of this issue. Millions of our constituents have benefited from low-cost airline flights, as have I, and I want them to continue to do so. Although the rules should not be broken, it is in the interests of Ryanair, easyJet, bmibaby or any other low-cost airline providers in Britain to have rules that are respected by competitors. It is very important that state aid rules apply in an impartial way. But I hope that in this case, the European Commission has not challenged and put a stop to the enormous benefit and opportunity that many people enjoy by paying low-cost fares to fly to their chosen destinations, and that it will not do so in future.

Hugh Robertson: The Leader of the House will be aware of the importance of medals to members of the armed forces. They constitute official recognition of the service that they give and, very occasionally, of the sacrifice that they are called on to make. Bearing in mind that the relevant Defence Council instruction was issued a matter of months after the 1991 Gulf conflict, and that members of the armed forces are now making an unfavourable comparison with members of the England rugby squad, whose awards were rightly rushed through, will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Defence to explain to the House why, nearly 10 months after the end of the Iraq war, no announcement has been made?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the England team's fantastic victory in the World cup occurred a matter of weeks before the new year's honours were announced, so that presented a convenient opportunity to recognise their achievement. However, I understand the point that he makes. Many of my constituents fought not just in the previous war in Iraq, but in the recent one, and if they are eligible they deserve early recognition. The authorities will want to look closely at how that can be achieved.

Sydney Chapman: May I encourage the Leader of the House to look favourably on the request made earlier by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) for a debate on fair trading? He will know of the devastating consequences that the common agricultural policy—and, indeed, the agricultural subsidy policies of rich countries such as the United States—have for many poor developing countries' economies. That is instanced by the dumping of food surpluses, and the keeping, in effect, of their food markets out of rich countries. This is a matter of increasing urgency. Could the Leader of the House look favourably on debating it if not next week, then shortly thereafter?

Peter Hain: I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman said. We must deal with the protectionism that is rife throughout the world's richer countries, including, I am sorry to say, those of the European Union. Frankly, the iniquitous common agricultural policy, which is being reformed, needs to be abolished. We need a rich world that opens up its markets to the poor world, thereby enabling the latter to lift itself out of poverty, and to provide markets for our own companies. The hon. Gentleman has identified a virtuous circle in this regard. Fair trade and trade justice are an imperative, and there will be opportunities to debate this issue as soon as possible.

Nigel Evans: I back the call for regular European questions, which would lead to a very interesting hour, but may we have a full day's debate, in Government time, on law and order and the Government's sentencing policy? Last year, violent crime in Lancashire rose by 47 per cent., and I want to get to grips with the question of whether the confusion surrounding Government policy, particularly on drugs, has led to this increase. I was also staggered to learn that last year more people received custodial sentences for motoring offences than for burglary. This is a shambles of a policy and we need to get to grips with it.

Peter Hain: There is a serious problem with alcohol and drug-related crime, which the Home Secretary and the police are addressing. However, that should be seen against a background of big falls in crime since we were elected to office, compared with the steep rises that occurred under the previous Conservative Government, which the hon. Gentleman supported.
	If there were great enthusiasm for tabling questions on European matters—I regret that there is not—Foreign Office questions could be flooded with such questions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and I discovered when we occupied our posts—and as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) is discovering—on the whole, relatively few European questions are tabled, compared with questions on other issues. So the solution lies in the hands of Members of the House.

David Cameron: May we have a debate on the closure of post offices, particularly of those in convenience stores in small towns? Is the Leader of the House aware that this is a problem in Witney, as in many other towns, following the takeover of T&S Stores by Tesco, and did he read what the Prime Minister said yesterday about this issue? He said that Tesco
	"did give us the assurance, however, that when reviewing those stores with post offices, it would work closely with Post Office Ltd."—[Official Report, 4 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 757.]
	As it is not clear that that happened, could the Leader of the House find out what those assurances were and when they were given, and place a copy in the House of Commons Library?

Peter Hain: The Secretary of State will want to study very carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said, because it is important that when promises are made—whether by Tesco or by anybody else—they are honoured. His constituency and constituencies throughout the United Kingdom are facing the difficulties associated with post office closures for all sorts of reasons. However, one of those reasons is not a lack of Government support. The Government have put hundreds of millions of pounds into supporting local post offices, because of the importance that we attach to them.

Points of Order

Tim Collins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that the next item on the Order Paper relates to the Standing Committee on the Higher Education Bill, and that the Bill has generated an extraordinary amount of interest on both sides of the House, and among many people outside it. In the light of that, could you say whether you received any representations from Ministers earlier today, indicating that they intend to rethink their approach to this Committee in two important respects? First, should they not revise yesterday's decision to ram through the Committee of Selection a balance of membership of the Standing Committee that violates the injunction of "Erskine May" that membership should reflect the balance of votes on Second Reading? Secondly, should they not revise their view that the Standing Committee should meet for only 12 sittings, which is clearly an inadequate amount of time? Given that many people outside this House are observing closely how we consider this Bill, would not a rigged and truncated Standing Committee be worse than no Committee at all?

George Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) is misleading the House. It is my—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman goes any further, perhaps he would like to rephrase the beginning of his remarks.

George Foulkes: Indeed, I will. I think that the hon. Gentleman has inadvertently stated something that is not correct. My understanding is that two rebels—if we can call them that—have been appointed to the Standing Committee, and that the Government's majority on it does not reflect their majority in this House as a whole; rather, it takes account of the vote that took place on this issue. [Interruption.] Well, that is certainly my understanding of the position. Yet again, Opposition Members are trying to make a party political point, and I hope that you will make it clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is not a point of order.

Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that there are 16 Labour Members on that Committee—of whom one was a rebel, the other Member in question having abstained—and nine Opposition Members? If the vote on Second Reading had been properly reflected, the Government would have a majority on that Committee of only one, rather than their existing majority. Is it not a disgrace that they could not do what "Erskine May" says they should do?

Peter Hain: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may help the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I can probably deal with the matter.
	With regard to the initial point of order, I have received no representations of the sort that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) mentioned. "Erskine May" makes it clear that the Speaker cannot interfere with the Committee of Selection, but I understand that the Committee has complied with the provisions of the Standing Order in nominating Members for the Committee considering the Higher Education Bill.

Angus Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In an interview on the BBC's "Today" programme this morning, and in evidence to the Defence Committee only a few hours ago, the Secretary of State for Defence said that he "did not see" the newspaper coverage after publication of the September 2002 dossier reporting that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction could be fired within 45 minutes and were long range and capable of reaching Cyprus. However, in his evidence to the Hutton inquiry on 22 September 2003, he was asked:
	"Are you aware that on 25 September . . . a number of newspapers had banner headlines suggesting that this related to strategic missiles or bombs?"
	The Secretary of State answered, "I can recall, 'yes'". What avenues are open to Members to secure a statement by the Secretary of State to establish which version is correct?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling on the previous points of order, and you are, of course, entirely correct to say that the Committee of Selection, on which I sit, did indeed comply with the Standing Order. However, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members find it difficult to understand how the Committee of Selection complied with "Erskine May". Perhaps the matter should be clarified for future Committees.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have nothing to add to my earlier ruling.

Higher Education Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
	That the Programme Order of 27th January in relation to the Higher Education Bill shall be amended by the substitution in paragraph 2 (time for conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee) for the words "Thursday 26th February" of the words "Thursday 4th March"—[Mr. Heppell.]
	The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 160.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Police

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate, and in the following debate on local government finance.

Hazel Blears: I beg to move,
	That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2004–05, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
	The Government are determined that resources for the police service should keep pace with the growing expectations made of it. I can assure the House that funding the police service properly remains a high priority for this Government. We will continue to provide the resources, powers and tools that are needed to deal effectively and efficiently with the whole range of policing problems, from tackling low-level disorder and antisocial behaviour to serious and organised crime.
	Since we embarked on police reform two years ago, a great deal has been achieved. We have record investment in policing—policing provision has increased by £2.3 billion, or 30 per cent., since 2000–01. There is a growing team of crime fighters, with the number of police officers and police staff at historically high levels. At 31 August last year, there were 136,386 police officers in England and Wales, an increase of more than 9,000 since 1997, when this Government came to power, and of more than 3,000 since March last year alone.

Mark Francois: When the Minister quotes those figures, will she confirm that they include people who have accepted job offers to become police officers? They have not yet been to training school or worn a uniform, but are counted, for statistical purposes, as part of the force strength.

Hazel Blears: At every stage of their development in the service, those people are considered to be members of the policing community and part of our crime-fighting team. The same practice would be adopted in any other organisation. The hon. Gentleman would do well to recall that police numbers fell, rather than rose, when the previous Conservative Government were in power. The record of this Government is therefore absolutely excellent.
	By March 2003, there were more than 63,000 police staff, 10,000 more than when the Government came to power in 1997. That increase has freed up police officers to concentrate on police duties. In addition, there were more than 3,000 community support officers out on patrol at the end of December last year. I am delighted that recent contributions from Opposition Members suggest that they now appreciate that CSOs make a tremendous contribution to making our communities safer.

Vincent Cable: While I echo the Minister's upbeat assessment, would she acknowledge that one of the success stories of recent years has been the improvement in the morale, effectiveness and numbers of the Metropolitan police since the present Home Secretary took over? However, why are the Government undercutting the position of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis by removing £56 million from the total for London expected as a result of last year's grant assessment?

Hazel Blears: I had the pleasure of reading the hon. Gentleman's contribution in the recent debate that he arranged on funding for the Metropolitan police. I was delighted by his very positive statements about the improvement in policing in London. We have not taken £56 million away from the Met. There has been a flat-rate settlement this year, which has implications for all forces across the country, not just for the Met. Some forces are gainers and some are losers, but I shall deal in detail with the implications later in my remarks.

Anne Campbell: I can tell the Minister that the extra police officers and the community support officers are very much appreciated in my constituency of Cambridge. However, Cambridgeshire has also lost out as a result of this year's flat-rate increase. Will she say when Cambridgeshire can expect to receive its full formula spending share and to get the transitional grant that is due?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that she has been campaigning with great effect against antisocial behaviour in her community. The decision to make a 3.25 per cent. across the board increase this year is exceptional, and I hope to return to the formula, which reflects the needs of different communities, as soon as we can.

Hywel Williams: Will there be a review before we revert to the old formula? The Minister will be interested to know that North Wales police recently told me that the formula is in urgent need of review, particularly to give greater recognition to rurality. I also understand that the formula is based on the 1991 census. Can she assure the House that there will be a review before a return to the formula?

Hazel Blears: The new formula was implemented only last year and was subject to a wide-ranging consultation, and the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities and all other stakeholders supported it. The hon. Gentleman will know that the rural policing grant reflects the needs of sparsely populated areas, and if he wants to make representations, I am sure that they can be considered. However, the formula is fair because of the recent wide consultation.

David Rendel: The Minister claims that this year's increase is 3.25 per cent. Thames Valley police have told their local members that that is not the correct figure because it includes the Airwave money, which has been reduced this year. If one includes Airwave, the overall figure is less than 3.25 per cent.

Hazel Blears: Hon. Members are anticipating many of the points that I shall cover in detail in my speech. On Airwave, we tried to put a specific grant into the general grant in order to give police authorities greater flexibility in making their own decisions, which is exactly what they wanted us to do. We recognise that there were problems where authorities had already made contractual commitments as a result of the Airwave programme. To remedy that, we have put £10 million of new revenue that would not have been within the settlement into the pot, and we have also contributed £20 million of capital targeted specifically at those forces that lost out the most because they had the greatest contractual commitments. I place on record my appreciation of the constructive efforts made by ACPO and the APA in enabling us to reach a fair settlement on Airwave.

James Paice: While the Minister is discussing Airwave, will she go further than paying tribute to police authorities and repeat her apology to them about Airwave, which she gave in a letter to the chairman of the APA:
	"I repeat the apology made at the meeting for the unhelpful though unintended consequences of reallocating this grant from specific to general."?
	Why does she not just admit that the Government got it wrong rather than trying to make excuses?

Hazel Blears: I have not made excuses and my comments have been transparent. I met members of the APA and was prepared to say that that step, which we took for the best of reasons, had had unintended consequences. I apologised for the difficulties that it had caused the APA, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, I was happy to confirm that in writing. I would not want a genuine step to maximise flexibility for police authorities to have inadvertent consequences, which we have done our best to remedy.

Brian Mawhinney: May I take the Minister back to Cambridgeshire for a moment? We know that money must be set aside from the grant and devoted to pension payments. What proportion of the grant to Cambridgeshire must be set aside to pay for pensions and how does it compare with the average across the police authorities?

Hazel Blears: I do not have that particular statistic at the moment. If I receive it before the end of the debate, I shall endeavour to give it to the right hon. Gentleman; if not, I shall write to him. He raises the important issue of pensions, on which we launched a consultation on 11 December last year examining how we can have a pension system that reflects the needs of both officers and the service. He is right to say that there is a retirements spike in some authorities, which makes funding pensions a burden. That is why in future we want to have a pension system that endeavours to even out the strains on police authority finances, because pensions are a large part of their budgets. Police authorities can also plan for pensions because they normally have significant notice of when people will retire and of when pension payments must be made.

David Drew: I would also like to see the disaggregated figures. Does the Minister agree that we should make a virtue of those members of the uniformed police force who want to stay on with the police in a civilian capacity, rather than seeing it as a fiddle? We should be clever enough to reach an arrangement whereby such people forgo their pension for a time, which would keep their expertise in the police force and make sure that the figures stack up. That suggestion would benefit the police, Parliament and the community—will she examine it?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We invest an enormous amount in the training, skills and expertise of members of the police service, which we should be able to retain. He will know that we recently came up with a programme of retention at 30 years-plus to do exactly that. We should examine any measures relating to the pension scheme that would also encourage the retention of skills and expertise.
	As well as record police numbers, it is as well to remind the House that the police service, in partnership with others, is bringing crime down. Since 1997, burglary is down by 39 per cent. and vehicle crime is down by 31 per cent. The chance of becoming a victim of crime in this country is as low as it was in 1981, which is a tremendous achievement, despite massive changes such as the growth in ownership of mobile phones. Indeed, the focus on police performance is much stronger than it used to be. We have been trying to make the use of modern technology more widespread: the 2 millionth profile has recently been loaded on to the DNA database and there are more than 2.17 million profiles for suspected offenders.
	Despite those achievements, huge challenges lie in front of us, and it is vital that all our agencies and communities work together. I shall briefly refer to the "together" campaign against antisocial behaviour, which is having a significant impact. The "together" campaign, the "together" academy and the "together" action line give local communities the tools and powers to address low-level loutish behaviour, which causes so much misery to our communities. We have also made tackling antisocial behaviour a priority in the national policing plan, so it is a strategic priority for the police.
	We want to make a stronger connection between communities and their police because we know that policing cannot simply be done to people. We want policing to occur with the active co-operation of communities so that local people give the police the intelligence and information that they need. Labour's approach has been "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", which is more than just a slogan—it is a workable response to the spiralling crime that the Tories created before 1997. Labour Members know that people on estates, in inner cities, in rural areas and in market towns want to see efficient and effective policing; deterrence that works; swift detection and arrest; and fast and fair sentencing.
	Crucially—this is the main philosophical difference between our parties—we must also understand the causes of crime, which is why police funding and partnership working are important. The issue is about not only a lack of individual responsibility but trying to address the underlying conditions that cause criminal behaviour—poverty, poor educational achievement, high unemployment and, crucially, drugs.

Bob Blizzard: Everything that my hon. Friend the Minister has just said relates to the situation in Suffolk. I wholeheartedly support the Government's strong message that local authorities will be capped if they come up with council tax increases greater than low single figure percentages, and I also agree that precepting authorities such as the police cannot be exempt from that. However, there is some evidence that the public are prepared to pay a bit more for their police than they are for their councils. When the Minister examines the proposed increases, will she be slightly more lenient with proposed increases from police authorities where they have put a good case together and where they present some evidence that people in their authority area support an increase?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He knows that I have been working extremely closely with my hon. Friends in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that we examine council tax and police precepts as holistically as possible. However, it is important that authorities have the support of their local communities when they propose increases. He is right that many local communities want to see good, effective, efficient, visible and accessible policing. I must also say to my hon. Friend that the council tax rises of the past few years are unsustainable, and we have sent out a clear message that we want authorities to be conscious of the effect on their communities of excessive council tax rises.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister mentions factors that can affect local police forces, but will she bear in mind that some forces—such as Surrey—that have a good record and are popular with the community they serve have faced unusual burdens? In my constituency, the murder of a lorry driver on the M3 by means of a brick dropped from a bridge coincided with Operation Orb in relation to the tragic murder of Milly Dowler, and with the inquiry into the Deepcut deaths. Will the Minister bear in mind that good forces such as Surrey have found it difficult to retain staff, because they have been tempted to transfer to the Met, and that forces have been under great financial strain even without the extra burdens of particular inquiries? Surrey police need help from this Government but they do not feel they are getting it.

Hazel Blears: Because of the 3.25 per cent. flat rate this year, Surrey police will receive £15.7 million more than they would have done had the formula been applied. They are one of the massive gainers this year. They also have record numbers of police officers—518 more than when the Government came to power—and 64 community support officers on patrol. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a special grant of £280,000 in April last year as a contribution to some of the large investigations that Surrey police were required to undertake. The hon. Gentleman will know that other applications for special grants and assistance are being considered. I am aware of the good work that Surrey police are doing, especially on the reassurance agenda, which is being led by the chief constable and is proving extremely interesting.

David Wilshire: Will the Minister give way?

Hazel Blears: No, I wish to make some progress; otherwise I will never get through everything I need to say.

David Wilshire: Will the Minister give way?

Hazel Blears: No, I shall make some progress. The police settlement for this year—

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When giving statistics to the House, such as the figure of 500 extra police in a particular police force area, should not a Minister making such a claim explain that it is because a Metropolitan police borough—my constituency—was moved out of the Met and into Surrey, and the officers went with it? That is not an increase.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair: it is a matter for the debate. The hon. Gentleman has made his contribution.

Hazel Blears: I am sure he has, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The settlement builds on a strong foundation of significant investment in the police service in recent years. It builds on annual increases in policing provision of 10.1 per cent. in 2000–01, 7.3 per cent. in 2001–02 and 6.2 per cent. this year. We are providing grant to support overall police spending of almost £10.1 billion. That is an increase of £400 million or 4.2 per cent. for this year.
	The police grant report deals with Home Office general police grant for revenue expenditure. That amounts to £4,380 million in 2004–05. The amounts payable to individual police authorities are listed in the police grant report that I have presented to the House. Additionally, police authorities will receive £2,892 million revenue support grant as local authorities, and special damping grant support for Wales of £14 million, making £7,286 million in total. That is an overall increase of 3.25 per cent. on last year. Main force allocations were set out in the statement on 30 January.

Parmjit Dhanda: My hon. Friend mentioned special grants. Together with Gloucestershire constabulary, I lobbied for a private finance initiative credit of £1 million, so that we could have a new police station worth £26 million in Quedgeley in my constituency. Has that additional £1 million been confirmed by the Government?

Hazel Blears: Yes, it is just under £1 million, but I confirm that the PFI credit has been provided to enable the scheme to go ahead. I am sure that my hon. Friend and his community will appreciate the excellent facilities that will be provided for policing in his area.
	In addition to the revenue support in general grant, I will provide £657 million for a range of specific initiatives and £355 million to support police authority capital programmes. I will spend some £706 million centrally in direct support of the police, and I shall say more about specific grant funding later.

Roger Williams: As a consequence of the flat-rate settlement in Dyfed-Powys police authority, it will need to increase its precept on the council tax by 15 per cent. to maintain officer numbers. That means that in the past six years the burden falling on the council tax payers will have increased from 15 per cent. to 35 per cent. of the funding needed to maintain the police force. Is it the Government's policy to transfer the burden of police funding away from the Government to the council tax payer?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the proportion borne by precept payers has increased in recent years, but the amount of investment from the centre has increased even more. There has been an increase of 30 per cent. in funding from the centre, and therefore there is no attempt to push the burden on to council tax and precept payers. Equally, where there is a demand for good, effective, visible and accountable policing in communities, it is a local responsibility as well as a national one to ensure that funds are in place to enable that to happen.
	Across Government, we will also invest £1.3 billion in the national drug strategy next year, which will make a real and significant contribution to breaking the link between drugs and crime.

Simon Hughes: Does the Minister recognise that her colleague Robin Wales, who chairs the Association of London Government, speaking on behalf of all London councils, has called her settlement disappointing for the Metropolitan Police Authority? The impact of the new formula, together with the transfer of funding mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), is the equivalent of a 9 per cent. council tax increase. Do the Government accept that their new formula for London will be the direct cause of 9 per cent. extra on the police budget for London council tax payers in April this year?

Hazel Blears: No, I do not accept that in the terms in which the hon. Gentleman chooses to put it. I will come to the settlement for the Metropolitan police, but they will get a significant increase in general grant as well as in many of the specific grants, including the formula for capital city functions. Extra funding will also be provided for the costs of the counter-terrorism work in which the Metropolitan police are particularly involved. I certainly do not accept the hon. Gentleman's formulation.
	There have been hard choices to make this year. We were always clear that this would be a difficult year in the spending review settlement, and I am very aware that recent changes to the funding formula—to better reflect forces' needs and to distribute police grant more fairly—were implemented for the first time only this year. Funding formulae always involve difficult decisions, but we must try to ensure that the funding system operates as fairly as possible for everyone.
	We have decided, exceptionally, to provide a standard general grant increase of 3.25 per cent. for each police authority in England and Wales in 2004–05. That is in recognition of the financial pressures on police authorities and our concern to avoid excessive burdens on council tax payers when police authorities set their final budgets for next year. Some authorities would benefit considerably were we to distribute general grant solely according to the needs-based formula. However, we have had to take full account of pressures across the board to ensure that all authorities could keep police precepts at sustainable levels next year and that policing services continue to improve. The general grant increase is well above inflation and will meet, in particular, the pay increases announced for next year. I want to assure hon. Members that we will try to get back to some better reflection of the funding formula in future years.
	I shall give some examples of the effect of the flat-rate settlement. Essex will gain more than £15 million, Kent more than £14 million, Surrey £15 million, Sussex £10 million and Thames Valley nearly £5 million. It is clear that there are some significant gainers from the operation of the system this year, and some significant losers, too.

David Heath: The Minister has just said that she expects council tax increases this year to be sustainable. Elsewhere, she has said that she expects them to be low. Her ministerial colleague with responsibility for local government has suggested that any council tax increase for local authorities that is greater than a low single figure percentage increase would be unacceptable. Is that the sort of increase that she expects for police authorities, and if the increase is higher, does she intend to cap them?

Hazel Blears: Clearly, the exercise of capping powers will be a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister but, as I said previously, I have been keeping in close contact with my right hon. Friend on those matters. I understand that the local government settlement is 5.5 per cent., which is a significant real-terms increase that builds on previous significant real-terms increases, so it is perfectly proper to ask authorities to try to keep their increases to low single figures in view of the amount that has gone into local government services. The hon. Gentleman will know, as I do, that the extra money found in December—£340 million—was specifically targeted on social services and the liveability agenda, so that is extra help for local government, too.
	The Home Secretary is writing to the 10 police authorities that we think are likely to be at the high end of police precept—[Interruption.] I can certainly supply the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) with a list of those authorities. The Home Secretary and I will be in direct contact with a wider range of authorities to discuss those issues. The issues are serious; it is not simply a matter of setting arbitrary figures, but of trying to support the authorities in making appropriate settlements.
	For next year, we have done everything possible to maximise the increase in general grant. Time and time again, authorities say that they want more flexibility to spend the money as they see fit, so we have added £140 million from wider Home Office resources to general grant provision. We have also taken £100 million from existing and planned specific grants—not just the Airwave money—and central spending to try to increase the scope for police authorities to determine their own spending.
	As in the last two years, we have made arrangements to ensure that Welsh police authorities receive support comparable to that for police authorities in England. We are providing special grant totalling just under £14 million to Welsh authorities next year. That is provided from outside the general grant settlement, as there are not enough forces in Wales to apply the floors and ceilings, and that will bring their allocations up to the 3.25 per cent. increase, in line with their English counterparts.
	I have already dealt with matters relating to Airwave, and I hope that the extra money that we are providing will assist forces in that regard.
	As part of the consultation exercise on the funding settlement, I have received 63 representations covering 32 police authority areas. I have received letters from chief constables, police authorities and hon. Members. I have met as many hon. Members and delegations as I possibly could during the consultation period. People expressed concerns about 10 big issues. Naturally, the biggest was the overall level of the settlement, because everybody would like more money, but the second biggest was the suspension of the funding formula—a point that has already been raised by hon. Members today. There were also concerns about the rural policing fund, the Airwave grant, the fact that there were no extra funds from the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, the effect on police precepts, the floors and ceilings, the area cost adjustment and the assumed national council tax rate—which I have endeavoured to understand—and its possible effect on the police precept.
	I have taken into account all the representations made to me, whether in writing or at meetings, but I want to deal with a couple of those concerns. The first is the suspension of the funding formula. The funding formula is a fair guide to relative needs and we minimised use of it this year only with the greatest reluctance. The formula is based not only on crime rates, but on employment, density, population, including residential population, and tourism, and it provides an accurate measure so that we can direct our resources to the places with the greatest need. This year, obviously, we have taken exceptional decisions.
	We have tried to protect police authorities from excessive year-on-year fluctuations by the introduction of floors and ceilings in 2002–03, but this year, with a standard-rate increase, the floors and ceilings are, in effect, at the same level. Through that arrangement, nine forces have contributed about £106 million to increase grant for forces that would have been below the floor of 3.25 per cent. I recognise that many of those making contributions to the funding floor feel that they are not getting their full share of the funding pot, but I have had to consider the need for financial stability across the board.

Paul Truswell: The situation for West Yorkshire is an example of what my hon. Friend has just been talking about. Does she acknowledge that the authority has not shared in the record increase in police officers, that the number of police per head of population in West Yorkshire is less than in any other metropolitan area, that as a result of floors and ceilings over the last two years we have lost grant of about £16 million and that the authority faces exceptional expenditure of more than £13 million as a result of the Bradford riots? Will my hon. Friend take that into account both when considering the precept and disbursing the extra money to which she referred earlier?

Hazel Blears: Only this week, I was in West Yorkshire visiting Leeds to look at some of the excellent work that is going on in local communities, especially in tackling antisocial behaviour, and to meet some of the community support officers. I think that West Yorkshire has 201 CSOs on patrol—one of the highest numbers. My hon. Friend is right to say that the force contributed £6.8 million to the pot for floors and ceilings this year and that will clearly have an effect. Nevertheless, there is an increase of £9.5 million in grant allocation for the force this year, which, building on significant previous increases, ought to be of assistance.
	We shall continue to work with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on issues relating to the police precept. Pensions have been mentioned several times, and I think that I have dealt with those issues.
	I want to deal with the Metropolitan police, as hon. Members are greatly concerned about that force, which has a significant impact in policing our country. Grant for the Metropolitan Police Authority will increase from £1,764 million to £1,822 million. I have increased the formula provision for the MPA national and capital city functions from £202 million to £207 million. The Met will benefit from a range of special grants and payments: £73 million from the crime fighting fund; £9 million—again—to tackle street crime; about £10 million for basic command unit funds; about £7 million from the DNA expansion programme; and a range of other funding, including £29 million for the London allowance and £3.1 million towards free travel for officers in the capital.
	The capital grant will be £355 million in the coming year, an increase of £22 million, or 6.6 per cent. Most of that provision, £185 million, will go directly to police authorities to support their capital programmes; we circulated the allocations this week. The Met will receive £48 million for capital plus a further £40 million as part of our agreement to support the costs of creating the command, control and communications system—the C3I system—which will further enhance the force's effectiveness.
	I am delighted to tell the House that this year we shall be phasing out the £20 million premises improvement fund, as we have managed to make significant progress on improving police stations and facilities for officers. However, I shall be asking forces to concentrate a similar sum on capital improvements in the coming year to give priority to investment in technology to support front-line policing. In north Wales, I have seen excellent examples; forces are beginning to use palm pilots and mobile data that save them from having to keep going back to the police station. They can download photographs or key in statements directly. We are asking them to look into such technology and I am delighted to say that forces will not have to bid for those funds, so we will not have to go through bureaucratic bidding processes.
	There are several specific programmes where funding is provided. One of the best and most successful is the crime fighting fund, a grant designed to increase the number of police officers. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will acknowledge that we have a record number of police officers. That has been achieved with the assistance of the crime fighting fund, which has enabled us to drive up police numbers.

John Pugh: The Minister is presumably aware that her comments about increased police numbers do not apply to Merseyside, but may I take her back to her discussion of representations from police authorities? My only experience of that was in the days when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was at the Home Office, there was a Conservative chairman of the Merseyside police authority and we received nothing. Will the Minister make clear how many of the representations made this year resulted in any change whatever to funding for local authorities?

Hazel Blears: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister responds, may I make this point to the House? It is difficult for the Chair to prevent Members from seeking to intervene and obviously the Minister then has to respond. The more and the longer the interventions, and the more the responses, the less the time that will be left for other Members who are waiting patiently to make their contributions to the debate.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman will know that the population of Merseyside is falling, but it has one of the highest ratios of police officers to population in the country. He will also know, from the statement made in the House, that we have confirmed the provisional settlement in relation to the proposals.
	I am conscious of the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and of the fact that hon. Members want to speak, but I should like to highlight one or two other issues in concluding my remarks. Additional funds will be given to the police service this year to enable it to respond to the continuing challenges of international terrorism. Special grant will continue for special priority payments.
	We will continue to fund and support the hugely successful community support officers. We now have 3,000 patrolling throughout the country, and 18 forces have been able to receive funding for their CSOs, not just from the police but from local authorities and, increasingly, from housing trusts and registered social landlords. I saw some in Telford just this week, and they are extremely successful.
	The rural policing fund will continue at £30 million. The street crime initiative will continue to be funded at £24 million, and we have had tremendous success in driving down street crime—a 17 per cent. reduction in the top 10 areas. We will provide another £50 million for high crime areas under the BCU fund.
	We will provide some new money this year for work force modernisation, which is absolutely central to the reform programme, to get a better skills mix throughout the police service; we have got £8 million this year and we will have £5 million next year. We have three big programmes in Northumbria and Surrey, and I hope to have a big programme in the Met as well, to redesign and re-engineer the way in which the police service works on the ground. We have seven medium-sized programmes in areas that range from Nottingham and Dyfed-Powys to civilian staff in Humberside and investigating officers in Lincolnshire—an engine for change and reform in our service.
	On the centrally provided services, we continue to fund the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, with increases of £12.2 million and £6.8 million respectively. The Police Information Technology Organisation has £264 million, and Centrex training receives £89 million. All that is fundamental to our reform programme.
	We are also taking action on the big challenge for us—to try to reduce bureaucracy. We will roll out the fixed penalty scheme right across the country. That scheme is hugely welcomed by officers, as they can issue fixed penalties without going through the custody process, so they are back out on the streets doing the job that they want to do and the job that we pay them for.
	All 43 forces now have facilities to undertake video identification parades, and Airwave is being rolled out across the county. The case and custody IT programme, which I saw in Warwick, will be a tremendous improvement on the current system. We are continuing to press police authorities to meet their efficiency gains. Many of them have done extremely well in recent years, and I hope that they will be able to do the same again.
	We always said that this year's settlement would be difficult. I believe that we have managed to strike the right balance in the distribution of police grant. There are some significant gainers; there are also those forces that have had to contribute significantly to the pot, but we have done a great deal with police reform in the past two years. We will continue to invest strongly in a reformed police service and to work closely with forces and communities to deliver, as the public rightly expect, ever higher standards of policing and performance to help to build safer communities for the people whom we serve. I commend the report to the House.

James Paice: The Minister refers in her closing remarks to spending the past two years reforming the police service. Do I have to remind her that the Government have been in office nearly seven years and that, in the first four years of that period, they actually slashed the police service by 3,000 officers?
	May I join the Minister, however, in paying tribute, as she did at the beginning of her speech, to our police forces? In the context of the Soham inquiry I am fortunate, or perhaps unfortunate, to represent South-East Cambridgeshire, so I have seen the police force at its most magnificent in the way that it and so many forces coped with that awful tragedy. I stand second to no one in paying tribute to the commitment, courage and sometimes astonishing bravery of our police in maintaining law and order—especially, as the Minister said, in these times of the increased threat from terrorism.
	The Conservative party wholly welcomes the increase in police numbers. It is pity that we had to go down 3,000 before we went up 12,000.

Paul Truswell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Paice: I will give way in a minute. I have not really got started yet; the Minister took nearly 40 minutes.
	It is interesting that the Prime Minister apparently has no reverse gear, yet we have reversed from a 3,000 reduction to a 12,000 increase. We have made it clear that we believe that another 40,000 police are needed. We will provide resources for those officers, so that we can have the policing that we believe is necessary for the country. It is interesting that the Government clearly do not share that objective.
	One of the omissions—there were a few—from the Minister's speech is that she talked about the crime fighting fund, but she did not remind the House that she is abandoning the crime fighting fund for any further officers this year. She looks askance, but that is in her statement. There will be no more crime fighting fund money, other than that for the existing increase in officers. Clearly, the Government do not intend to make the significant increase in the number of officers that we believe is necessary.

Paul Truswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He talks about police numbers being slashed, but was that not partly the result of the Government perhaps unwisely keeping to Conservative Government spending figures for the first two years?

James Paice: A Government in office have to take responsibility for their own decisions. The Government were not required to stick to any figure. I have no idea whether they stuck to previous figures. I cannot believe that that is the case. It is also very interesting to consider—dare I say it?—the totality of the Government's activities in the first Parliament. Where it suited them to blame the previous Government's spending plans, they blamed them; where it suited them to take credit for what was done, they took the credit. They cannot have it both ways.
	After paying tribute to the police forces, I want to pay tribute to the Minister. Frankly, for a Minister who shows the marks of the Chancellor's hobnail boots all over her in terms of the settlement, she presented an incredibly rosy picture of police funding—if it can be said that giving a little more than half what police authorities need represents a rosy picture. I remind her that the No. 10 strategy unit has said that crime figures in this country are among the worst in the developed world.
	Let us look back at the past three years, since the welcome 12,000 increase in police numbers. In those same three years, the council tax precept for police authorities has gone up by no less than 87 per cent. We have to ask why that is so. Police authority expenditure has gone up by £1.8 billion—a 22 per cent. increase—but that is almost entirely driven by central costs: centrally determined pay, pensions, national insurance hikes and the increased number of civilians. The Minister boasted about that increase, but most of those civilians are needed to fulfil bureaucratic functions required by the Government: filling in forms, meeting targets, and carrying out 34 Government initiatives, which they have imposed on police authorities regardless of local needs and priorities.

Parmjit Dhanda: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me time, by giving way. He says that part of the problem has been increased bureaucracy. Is he aware that, over the past 10 years, we have seen something like a doubling—certainly in my area—in the number of civilian support staff? He may view that as added bureaucracy, but a lot of those people are retired police officers who are now civilian note takers, for example. Is he pledging to reduce the number of civilian support staff to boost the number of police officers; or would he increase the burden of taxation?

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman entirely misses the point. My point is not that we do not want to see an increase in the use of civilians for jobs that do not require police officers, but that the huge increase in expenditure by police authorities has been caused by central Government decision making. Police authorities do not have the discretion that they used to have to control their expenditure.
	Of the £1.8 billion increase in expenditure, total central Government contributions have increased by just £881 million. The Minister obfuscated over the past half an hour or so, with all sorts of lists of different funds—£10 million here, £50 million or £60 million there. The reality—the totality—is an increase in Government spending of £881 million in the past three years. So to meet those centrally determined costs, police authorities have had no option but to increase their precepts, because the Government have added expense burdens yet have not provided the resources to match them.
	Whereas in the base year of 2000–01—the year in which police numbers started to rise—the council tax raised just 13 per cent. of police authority expenditure, it is raising more than 20 per cent. in the current year. That represents a dramatic shift in funding responsibility. If we look behind the national figures to determine what they actually mean for police numbers, we find out that although the Government boast about the extra 12,000 officers, the rise in council tax paid for by council tax payers throughout the country would have paid for more than 19,000 extra officers if it had not had to be used to make up for the Government's shortfall in funding. In London, that would have meant another 500 officers. South Yorkshire has seen a tax increase of 63 per cent. That would have paid for 269 extra officers in the Home Secretary's force, but it has received just 47. The tax in my area of Cambridgeshire has gone up by 90 per cent. That would have paid for 267 extra officers, but we have got just 174. In Hampshire, which is the area of the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham)—the previous Minister with responsibility for the police, who was in office for most of the three years about which I am talking—the tax has gone up by 80 per cent. That would have paid for 561 extra officers, but the area received only 274.
	The list goes on. Only eight out of 43 police authorities have experienced an increase in officers greater than that which would have been paid for by the tax increase. My accusation against the Government is not that we have got extra police officers over the past few years, but that, contrary to ministerial hype, not only have they been paid for by the council tax payer, but the council tax payer has been short-changed by some 7,000 officers.

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if one considers the widely varying policing needs of the Metropolitan police area, especially because of demands on inner London owing to terrorist threats, outer London boroughs such as Havering are getting the smallest slice of the Metropolitan cake? Whatever the additional resources poured into the Metropolitan area, the outer London boroughs are still starved of resources.

James Paice: My hon. Friend stands second to no one in supporting her force, and she is perfectly correct to question the allocation of resources in a force. My only caution in response is that forces should have such discretion, and my contention is that so much of it has been taken from them by the Government.
	Let me turn to next year's funding. The settlement smacks of panic. What happened to education last year is happening to the police this year. Why else have the Government had to suspend the funding formula that they brought in only a year ago? They have suspended it regardless of need, growth or specific circumstances in localities. The Minister boasted of half a dozen police authorities that will gain from the settlement, but she did not list the losers. If she had stuck to the formula, at least it would have been clear to everyone why they got what they got. Instead, there is a blanket 3.25 per cent. for all authorities, although as was said earlier, it is about 3.15 per cent. after one allows for the Airwave debacle.
	In many cases, specific grants were already committed. That was not only true of Airwave, for which £37.5 million was originally taken out of budgets—it is nothing short of a shambles that the Home Office took out that money. The Minister tried to lead the House into believing that because she has put some of the money back, there has somehow been an overall increase in spending on Airwave. There is still a £7.5 million shortfall, and authorities are contractually committed to pay much of that money, including, I dare say, that of the Surrey police force, which she suggested had received an especially good settlement.
	Last autumn, the Association of Police Authorities told the Home Secretary that a 6 per cent. increase was needed to meet budget obligations. It told him why: all the increased pay required by central pay negotiations; pension demands; the new statutory duties in the Police Reform Act 2002; the running costs of the new information technology systems; anti-terrorist work; DNA support; and even—God help us—centrally determined uniform requirements, which will add 1 per cent. to my force's council tax precept. Instead of receiving 6 per cent., it is receiving 3.25 per cent. In fact, to underline the panic clearly faced by the Government, figures show that the Home Office police grant went up by only 2.1 per cent. Rather like Corporal Jones, I imagine that the Minister was flying round the Home Office shouting, "Don't panic—where can we find some more money?"
	The Minister told the House that she had found a little more money. She found £140 million from somewhere else in the Home Office, which only goes to show where waste must already exist. She found £100 million from specific and capital grants, so the Government are using capital grant money to support revenue spending. The result is that the Association of Police Authorities expects an average 15 per cent. rise to the precept this year. Just 11 out of the 43 police authorities expect single-figure rises, and only three expect a rise below 9 per cent.
	That brings me on to capping. The Deputy Prime Minister said that he expects council tax rises to be in low single figures. The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire told many authorities that he will step in if they levy an increase of more than 5 per cent. The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety told the police authorities about capping:
	"We hope that it will not be necessary for any police authority and look to continued improvement in policing services without excessive burdens being placed on local taxpayers"—
	some hope.
	What does the Minister propose? How are police authorities to reduce expenditure by £250 million, which is the gap between what she has provided and what they need? Most police authorities cannot reduce their numbers of police officers because of the crime fighting fund criteria—any reductions would be taken off the crime fighting fund figures first—so they will have no option but to reduce civilian staff. Reducing civilian staff inevitably means taking police officers off the streets and putting them back behind desks. What is the Minister doing to cut all the centrally imposed costs?
	If the Minister is determined, as she appears to be, to impose only a 3.25 per cent. increase, police authorities must be told now. We are into February, so it is no use saying that she will hold discussions with police authorities over the coming weeks and months. They are setting their budgets now, and they must tell the preceptor authorities how much they need in the next few weeks. When will she tell them her expectations on capping? When will she tell them what she expects their budgets to be and what she expects them to cut so that they may meet those budgets? She cannot shuffle off responsibility on to the Deputy Prime Minister. She needs to tell the authorities now exactly what she expects of them. If she tells them that they must not increase their precept by more than 6 or 7 per cent.—whatever figure she decides—yes, they will have to make cuts, but at least they will know what they are doing. They currently face setting an average increase of 15 per cent.
	Far from providing the improvement in policing that the Minister wants from the settlement, it will almost certainly lead to a worsening. The beleaguered council tax payer will continue to pay more and to be short-changed by the Government.

Paddy Tipping: The settlement is important for people who live in Nottinghamshire, as is the debate. On 25 February, the police authority will consider the precept increase—the indicative figure is 12.6 per cent. That comes on top of a growth in the current year of 18 per cent., and a growth in 2002–03 of 28 per cent. Over the space of three years, the council tax payers in Nottingham have been asked to pay more than 60 per cent. extra. People on fixed incomes, elderly people, the poor and those who are more prone to crime than others must ask whether they are getting value for money.
	We in Nottinghamshire are in a position to make some judgments about that. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary reported last March that not only were we not getting value for money, but that the police in Nottinghamshire were not efficient or effective. HMIC reported again at the end of last year and concluded that there had been a small improvement. That had come at a very late stage, but at least it was an improving police force. I commend the officers on the beat in Nottinghamshire for their hard work. The HMIC report went on to say that, compared with other authorities, the performance of the Nottinghamshire police was relatively poor.
	There are strong feelings among residents of Nottinghamshire that they are not getting a fair deal from their police. That view is supported by all the Nottinghamshire Members of Parliament. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) is present, sitting on the Front Bench. He has campaigned hard for local authorities to work on antisocial behaviour, and for better co-operation between the police and the local authority, because he knows that in places such as Netherfield, the yobbish behaviour affects people. He knows, too, that people living in Arnold were mortified by the tragic death of Marian Bates. I am delighted, as is my hon. Friend, that an arrest has been made and that it looks as though the efforts of the Nottinghamshire police are making progress. We want a successful conclusion.
	We should acknowledge that alongside progress, there have been management failings. It was the chief constable who introduced a new telephone system two years ago, which was ineffective. It was the chief constable and the police who decided to realign boundaries alongside district council boundaries, again for good reasons, but that change caused problems and led to a fall in morale in the Nottinghamshire police. Again, it was a management decision that rapid response squads should be taken away from a local base and placed centrally. There was a strong feeling in the community that people were being denied their police. Of course, when police come from another town, they are not familiar with local problems, and sometimes have difficulty finding the scene of the crime.
	Such management failings build on a long tradition of complacency. We have a new—or rather, a not so new—chief constable, Stephen Green, who has been in place for three years and has brought in radical change. If there is criticism of the chief constable, it is that he has introduced too much change. There have been difficulties in trying to handle change on that scale. Change and investment go together. Reform needs investment, but investment should be a precondition for reform. I am not confident that we have the balance right in Nottinghamshire. I want to see improved performance from the Nottinghamshire police, but we need to examine carefully what is happening in the force. They are, they argue strongly, under-resourced.
	There are more crimes per officer in Nottinghamshire than anywhere else. In terms of crimes per 1,000 of population, Nottinghamshire tops the league. There are twice the number of 999 calls to the Nottinghamshire police. That shows the demands made on the force, but it has not all been bad news. Nottinghamshire police have record numbers of police officers—an extra 264 over the past few years, backed by 43 community support officers, who do valuable work in local communities. My fellow MPs from the area and I want to see more uniformed community support officers working in conjunction with the local authorities for change.
	We need to ask why crime is traditionally so high in Nottinghamshire. Will my hon. Friend the Minister, in co-operation with HMIC and the police standards unit, investigate why for 20 years the crime rate in Nottinghamshire appears to have been higher than anywhere else in the country? There is a history of heavy drinking and violent behaviour, but it is not clear why Nottinghamshire, with a big urban centre, mining communities and a rural area, should appear to be so atypical. We need to examine that closely. We must also consider current crime trends in Nottinghamshire. Ten years ago there would be eight or nine murders a year. In the past two years the Nottinghamshire police have had to investigate 17 category A murders, and that takes a tremendous amount of resources.
	Those crimes generally occur in Nottingham. The effect is that police are brought from outside the city, leaving a policing vacuum in suburban and rural areas. The police are on the case; they take the matter seriously. They are to set up a homicide unit, creating a pool of officers at the centre, backed by better technology. However, further work is required. The police in Nottinghamshire are considering the possibility of establishing a serious offending unit—a group based in the centre, so that officers are not sucked away from their area, and so that when assassinations take place, driven largely by drug-related crime, there is a separate unit that can respond to the situation. Much work is being done, funded by the police authority's budget, to establish such a unit.
	It is important that we examine the level of serious crime in Nottinghamshire. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has discussed the matter with us privately, is to go to Nottinghamshire on Monday. She will meet a range of people there and speak to the chief constable and to the chairman of the police authority, John Clarke. I hope the discussion will be on the twin themes of investment and reform. I hope that she and all of us will build on the work of pulling together the various bodies in Nottinghamshire. HMIC and the standards unit have been working closely together. When she visits Nottinghamshire, I should like my hon. Friend to deliver a new vision, a new sense of purpose, an awareness of the problem, a set of actions and a timetable to achieve change. People in Nottinghamshire deserve nothing less.

David Heath: Throughout the country, people are sick and tired of the council tax, and of large increases in their council tax. They are sick and tired of increases in their council tax without any appreciable improvement in the service they receive. Although I have a great deal of respect and time for the Minister, it is no good blathering on about the improvements in police numbers if the Government are not prepared to put in the resources to pay for them. It is no good blathering on about keeping council tax increases down to a reasonable—sustainable, as she puts it—level, if the Government are not prepared to ensure the proper balance between central Government expenditure and local government expenditure.
	The inconvenient truth hidden in the police grant report that we are debating, which was outlined by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), is that there are police forces and police authorities all over the country that will not put in bids this year for council tax increases of 5, 6 or 7 per cent. They will be well into double figures, as even a cursory glance at the list of expected increases reveals, although I accept that that may change over the next few days as budget meetings take place. Avon and Somerset expects an increase of 12 per cent.; Bedfordshire, 15.9 per cent.; Cambridgeshire, 14.1 per cent.; Cheshire, up to 18 per cent.; Devon and Cornwall, 12.5 per cent.; and Durham, 20 per cent. I shall not read the complete list, but it is clear that the vast majority of police authorities expect substantial increases in council tax this year, which build on increases that have been made year after year. Someone has to say, "Enough is enough." No one begrudges paying for policing: people want more police on their streets and welcome what the Government have done to increase the number of officers across the country. In that respect, their only criticism of the Government is that it took them two to three years to distance themselves from the tired Conservative policy of not providing any increases in police numbers. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) said that perhaps that was not wise. In fact, it was blindly stupid of the Government in their first term not to recognise the need to fight crime effectively.
	There is a problem, and I hope that the Minister will give us the list of 10 police authorities to which she intends to write, and tell us what she intends to say to them. Will she tell them that they are to cut police numbers, or that they are to cut civilian numbers and return those duties to uniformed officers? Will she tell them that they are to reduce the effectiveness of their operations? Of course not. She will say that they must magically produce the money that the Government have not provided. The question of whether the Government intend to cap police authorities, which face a funding gap of £250 million, remains unanswered.

Roger Williams: If my hon. Friend cannot help me, perhaps the Minister can when she replies. Which Ministry would be responsible for any possible cap of Welsh police authorities?

David Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, but I do not know the answer. I hope that the Minister can help, as there is the slightly odd interposition of the Welsh Assembly. However, my hon. Friend's police authority, Dyfed-Powys, faces a 15 per cent. increase. I know its chief constable well, and appointed him to the ranks of the Association of Chief Police Officers a few years ago. He is a dedicated police officer, and his force is extremely lean, effective and efficient. If it says that it needs 15 per cent., we can be sure that that is not because it has inflated ideas about what it should provide.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend will be aware that in London we are looking forward to the prospect of the Government having to cap the Mayor—that would be an interesting phenomenon. However, has he seen any statement of Government policy that owns up to the fact that they want to cut the share of taxpayers' money going to police authorities? In effect, the Government would indirectly impose a stealth tax through police authorities, whatever their political persuasion.

David Heath: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and cogent point. The Government came as close as they have yet done to an admission that that was the case when the Minister replied to one of his interventions. The Government are pursuing a policy of increasing policing at the expense of the council tax payer rather than at the expense of central Government.
	If the council tax system is not working on that scale, what are the answers? One solution is the reform or abolition of the council tax. I do not want to get into that argument, because it will be pursued in the following debate on local government finance, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) wishes to address it. We could tackle the overall presentation of figures, as there are distortions in the system. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire highlighted some of them, including the pension system. I always give this example, but I shall do so again. When I was involved with the predecessor of the Association of Police Authorities, I went to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean), who was then police Minister, to discuss pensions. He promised me that the matter would be solved by Christmas. That was back in 1996, but we are still waiting for a solution.
	Airwave has already been discussed, and I do not want to add anything, other than to observe that the money that the Government have put back into the system has reappeared mostly as capital rather than revenue, which will cause problems for police authorities. It is time to take a serious look at police authorities' responsibilities. There should be a national audit of the availability of officers in different parts of the country and the adequacy of police cover, which could, for example, deal with the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). I hesitate to suggest another inquiry, as there are rather a lot of inquiries at the moment. Indeed, it is time that the Government published a directory of inquiries, so that we could work out which is which. However, we need an audit of the adequacy of police cover.
	We also need to look carefully at the national responsibilities that many of our forces, especially the Metropolitan police, are taking on. We rightly regard the threat of terrorism, organised crime, the drugs trade and activities by paedophiles as matters that transcend police authority boundaries and that need to be dealt with effectively, but we do not have the apparatus to do so. We should acknowledge that and look at how we could remove those responsibilities from the sphere of the local chief constable and police authority so that they can concentrate on what is most important to the local community—tackling crime in the area, keeping the peace, reducing antisocial behaviour and doing the things that we all know our constituents want.
	We need to look at the relationship between the police and the areas that they serve. The police, the chief constable and individual areas should agree a minimum policing guarantee. That guarantee need not operate on a force basis and certainly not on a joint force basis. My own constabulary, Avon and Somerset, covers a huge area, but there is major crime in Bristol, which acts as a magnet for resources, constantly reducing the policing available in rural parts of Somerset. The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) mentioned the position in Havering. I do not know what the situation is in the London boroughs, but each one should have the opportunity to state the minimum level of policing needed in its area. There should be a relationship between that level and the amount of council tax that people pay.

Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that police authorities should have the freedom to use their budgets to decide, for example, whether to spend money on police constables or community support officers? The money allocated for CSOs should not be ring-fenced.

David Heath: Such local freedom should apply. If we undertook some of the basic reforms that I have suggested, which may be far beyond the scope of the police grant report, it would enable local police commanders to make such decisions in consultation with local communities. We would thereby afford our police a genuine opportunity to work with and for the local community, so that they are no longer compelled by Home Office edicts to take on other responsibilities. I do not want to give the wrong impression, as I do not believe that national responsibilities are unimportant. I simply believe that they should not be dealt with at the expense of local policing and local crime fighting.
	So many things could be done better to equip police forces. The Minister rightly mentioned IT provision. It is crazy that the average AA or RAC patrol officer has immensely better IT equipment in his or her van than a police officer who may be called to attend a serious crime, yet that is the case all over the country. However much money we plough into policing, we will not do a good job for the public until we reduce paperwork and bureaucracy; understand the importance of the patrol function instead of treating it as a marginal activity that is always reduced when times are hard; realise the effect of abstractions on national responsibilities in relation to crime and local policing; and mobilise the local community by using retained officers, as do fire brigades in rural areas, to free up full-time officers and to provide extra cover and visibility.
	Funding our police adequately is not only important but essential to the maintenance of good order. We sometimes expect an awful lot of our police, and they generally deliver, but they cannot do so without adequate personnel or resources to do the job. If the Government and we as a House want that to happen effectively in our local areas, we have to will the means as well as the ends. It is simply a deception on the public if we talk big about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime without ultimately providing the resources that make that a reality, while hoping that people will not notice. At the moment, however, they are noticing. They feel that they are not getting the value for money that they are entitled to expect from our policing service, and that they are paying more and more, to the point at which the policing precept is beginning to overtake the district council precept on the council tax bill. I fear that their questions are going unanswered. I fear that the Government are not providing the central resources and that many people will get a horrible shock when they open their council tax bills this year. Those people will be writing letters to their Members of Parliament, to their chief constables and to their local press to ask why they are paying another 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. for policing despite the fact that they cannot remember the last time they saw a police constable in their town, village or street.
	The House should reject the report and ask the Government to think again. It fails to support local policing, fails to protect the local taxpayer and, in the long term, fails to protect the public.

Stuart Bell: It is always a pleasure to speak on the Floor of the House when you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I last did so, I spoke for 47 minutes, but today I will keep within Mr. Speaker's limit.
	It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who spoke with great eloquence and pertinence. I shall not respond to his speech—I leave that to the Minister—but he made some important points about our local communities and their receptiveness to police officers, which he balanced against current levels of council tax.
	I welcome the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister. Essentially, her increase in grant of 3.25 per cent. on last year means that Cleveland police will receive a total of £86.8 million in general grant for the year, with more specific grants that will become available, giving our police authority an extra £2.5 million. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned the presence on the streets of police officers. The money that is on the table will go towards putting 200 extra bobbies on the beat in Cleveland—100 police officers and 100 police community support officers, who, as the Minister said, are important in our communities. That will amount to one additional fresh police face in all 71 wards in Cleveland, covering Stockton, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, and Redcar and Cleveland.
	The additional money that we are voting on today links in with the Government's determined drive to tackle antisocial behaviour head on and to heighten the police presence on our streets. That will help Cleveland police to establish a force with the specific task of tackling antisocial behaviour. The Minister referred to efficient and effective policing and deterrence that works. Such a presence on the streets is comforting and reassuring, and emphasises the fact that central Government do care and are prepared to put their money where their mouth is. I am sure that that feeling will be reflected in Middlesbrough and in Cleveland overall. Any new bobbies on the beat in Middlesbrough will link with the 70 street wardens, who now respond to more than 1,000 calls a month, and the 14 extra police officers introduced through the town's neighbourhood renewal programme.
	On 19 December last year, we had the pleasure of receiving the noble Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, in Middlesbrough to see how well our warden scheme is working. He attended—as did I, with the mayor of Middlesbrough—a briefing for the wardens before they want out on patrol. Their knowledge of the local crime scene and the way in which they interfaced with our regular police force showed not only their determination to crack down on antisocial behaviour, but how, by co-ordinating their efforts, they can seek to get on top of that problem, which is, by general consent in this House and elsewhere, an affliction in our whole society.
	Our elected mayor, Ray Mallon, has demonstrated how seriously he treats crime in the town. Each morning, almost before the rest of us wake, he is informed of the overnight crime statistics in the Boro—a fact that impressed me and the noble Lord Falconer. He can immediately see what the crime figures are, whether they are going up or down, and which areas are affected. In a sense, he has his finger on the crime pulse of our town. I would urge chief executives and leaders of local authorities up and down the land to adopt that system, so that, working with their constabularies, they too get the overnight statistics and keep their fingers on the crime pulse; and so that their citizens also benefit in the long run from the measures that the Government, with community wardens and the police, are taking against antisocial behaviour. The road to ridding our society of such behaviour might be long and rocky, but it is worth journeying for the benefit of our people. The motion is a positive step in that direction.
	Our street wardens now respond to 1,000 calls a month, freeing up police resources to deal with crime. We have spent £500,000 on improving the Middlesbrough CCTV network, which covers the town centre and surrounding areas. Cameras have helped in increasing the number of arrests since the new centre was set up. Cleveland police and Middlesbrough council have secured more antisocial behaviour orders against offenders and more than 200 have signed acceptable behaviour contracts.
	According to national crime recording standards figures, overall crime in Middlesbrough is down by 3.7 per cent. and house burglaries have decreased by 22.9 per cent. In Cleveland, we have a unique opportunity because we have a new chief constable, a new senior management team and a new chief executive. It is important that they use the extra resources that the Government have awarded through the motion to respond to the overwhelming public demand, to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred, for an increase in high visibility community policing, with greater officer presence on the streets.
	Cleveland police authority has assured the Minister that all additional funding in its budget, which is set on 19 February, will be used to increase officer numbers. It could give that assurance because the savings and efficiencies that it achieved amount to almost £3 million. Cleveland police authority would therefore fail in its duty to the local community and to central Government, who wish to tackle antisocial behaviour, if it did not go ahead with its proposals to use the new money available to put the 200 additional officers on the streets of the various wards in Cleveland. Our proposals for 200 additional officers in Cleveland have been welcomed at every public meeting that the chief constable and the chairman of the police authority have attended in the run-up to setting the budget on 19 February.
	Following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), we learned that the Minister goes to West Yorkshire on Monday. She will visit Cleveland by the end of the month and witness our great and determined efforts to tackle antisocial behaviour and use the money on which we shall vote today with the utmost seriousness and diligence in the interests of the community by increasing the number of officers. Our people in Middlesbrough, like others throughout the land, will therefore see an increased police presence, feel reassured and continue to witness falling crime figures. I am therefore happy to support the motion and the increase in the money that the Minister will give Cleveland.

Peter Luff: So far, we have heard from the north, the south-west, London and the east. Now it is the turn of the west midlands—specifically, the West Mercia constabulary.
	I pay unqualified tribute to the West Mercia constabulary. Whenever I have raised an operational problem, it has responded magnificently. When it has made mistakes, it has admitted them and tackled them well. I have nothing but praise for Bob Forster, the chairman of the police authority, Paul West, the new chief constable and all the officers who work under him, especially in my constituency.
	We experience specific challenges. West Mercia is a low crime area, and it is wrong to fear crime in my constituency to the same extent as in London. However, the police have to deal with genuine problems, especially antisocial behaviour, which is a huge menace in large parts of my constituency, and illegal travellers. Rural forces have to contend with such issues, which pose genuine challenges to the constabulary's resources.
	I want to make two key points. First, police numbers have increased in West Mercia and, on balance, I am pleased about that. I say "on balance" because the council tax payer has borne the entire cost of paying for the extra officers. Not one penny of Government money has gone towards increasing the number of officers in my constituency. Two years ago there was an increase of 300 officers, and that was financed by the 33 per cent. increase in the council tax precept in one year.
	I am delighted that there are more officers, but I will not see the Government take the credit. The council tax payers of the West Mercia constabulary area should do that. The Government cannot brag about an increase in police numbers because they have not funded it. My constituents—the council tax payers—have paid for those additional officers.
	My second point is almost parenthetical. It is a marker for the future rather than the present. I want to ensure the maintenance of the independence of the West Mercia constabulary. I am fearful of the Government's plans for regionalisation of the fire service and I worry that the same could happen to police services. I do not want the West Mercia constabulary to be merged into a larger West Midlands police force. The urban area that the West Midlands authority currently serves has a different set of problems, and I am delighted that the West Mercia constabulary remains separate, able to serve the larger rural areas of Shropshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire, and to have people, such as me, speaking up for its concerns. I hope that the Government will not toy with regionalising the police service.
	My text is the "Draft 3 Year Strategy, Joint Policing Plan and Budget Consultation 2004/5", which West Mercia constabulary recently produced. It was sent to all Members of Parliament and other interested bodies in the constabulary area. It points out:
	"Policing is funded in part from central government grant and in part from the council taxpayer. This year the government's provisional grant has increased by 2.8 per cent. against a minimum 6.6 per cent. increase in the Police Authority budget required to cover current obligations."
	Does the Minister query that 6.6 per cent. figure? I have not seen all the details, and I freely confess that the police authority could do some things more efficiently. However, the West Mercia authority has been spectacularly successful in achieving efficiency savings year after year. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has confirmed that West Mercia exceeded its 2 per cent. efficiency target in each of the past four years. That means £12.8 million of savings, and I say, "Well done, West Mercia" for that.
	I am broadly convinced that the increased obligations on several public sector organisations—district and county councils, as well as the police—are much higher than the Government admit. They want to take the credit for doing many things, but they will not pick up the bill for achieving them. The Government also impose increasingly strenuous reporting obligations on public services locally. That, too, imposes huge costs on organisations such as West Mercia police authority.
	I am worried because the police authority document states:
	"In order to maintain and develop the existing level of service and respond to external pressures, new legislation and unavoidable requirements, local council taxpayers will have to pay an increased share of the police budget. The calculated increase to permit this is an extra £18.40 per annum or 36p per week for a Band D property, which equates to a 15.4 per cent. rise."
	I understand why the police authority, which is desperate for the money, resorts to a slightly disingenuous technique of referring to 36p per week. The figure of 15.4 per cent. is much more important. In 2001–02, there was a 6 per cent. increase; in 2002–03, there was a 33 per cent. increase, and in 2003–04, the increase was 14.6 per cent. So far in the Parliament, the council tax precept for West Mercia police authority has increased by 62 per cent. The proposed increase would take the cumulative figure to 86 per cent., which the hard-pressed council tax payers of my constituency have to fund.
	The increase that the police authority proposes is smaller than what the chief constable wanted. He asked for an overall budget increase of 7.9 per cent., which would mean an increase of 19.4 per cent. in the police precept. The police authority has therefore already trimmed the chief constable's requirements, which would have meant an extra £23.27 a year for the average band D council tax payer. I am deeply worried about that. Clearly, the police authority is already cutting back on what it believes the chief constable needs to fulfil his policing requirements in my constituency.
	The increase will lead to a further modest increase in police officers and the development of sufficient supervisory ranks to improve the performance of existing officers. However, a part of the relevant paragraph in the police authority document worries me. It states:
	"This level of police officers would bring the force close to an average level for Shire forces"—
	we are well below average for shire forces, never mind national forces—
	"and complies with the Government's wish to see a strengthening of police officers nationally."
	Let me revert to my earlier point. If the Government want to see higher police officer numbers nationally, they should pay for that from general taxation, not load the burden on to the fixed income households—the pensioners—in my constituency. They just cannot afford any further such council tax increases.
	There is also the thorny question of the area cost adjustment applied to police authority funding. I remind the Minister that West Mercia is surrounded by authorities that receive the area cost adjustment. The West Midlands, Gloucestershire and Warwickshire police all receive the area cost adjustment but are fishing in exactly the same labour pool as the West Mercia constabulary. Indeed, many officers of West Midlands police live in my constituency, and when I canvass them at election time and between elections, they tell me about life in Birmingham. The West Midlands police authority is rewarded with extra money for the additional costs involved in the recruitment of police officers who have chosen to live in my constituency. By logic, the West Mercia authority should receive the same additional funding.
	I have two specific points to put to the Minister. First, my police authority was very pleased to receive a letter at the end of last year informing it that there would be an extra £340 million for English local authorities. It wrote back to ask how much of that it was going to get; the answer, of course, was absolutely nothing. It was very sweet of Ministers to ensure that a letter went to that police authority to tell it about extra money that other authorities would get. Why did it get a letter telling it about that additional money, when not a penny of it was coming to policing?
	Secondly, will the Minister confirm that, as Robert Forster has said in a letter to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the claim that there has been a 3.25 per cent. increase in overall police funding is just not true? The increase is actually 2.8 per cent., as I believe she previously admitted, because the figure includes
	"the transfer of ring-fenced initiatives into mainstream grant funding".
	That is another classic example of smoke and mirrors from the Government.
	I have a real concern for my police authority, which I hold in high regard, and the policemen and women of my area, whom I also hold in high regard. There is a perception abroad in the country that there is a war on motorists rather than a war on burglars. I say that that is a perception, and it may or may not be fair, but that is how people feel. Yet the council tax payers see the police demanding more and more money from them, year on year, through huge increases in council tax. I am worried that the Government's strategy for funding the police, and their strategy towards motorists, might well conspire to remove much popular support for the police, not just in my constituency but up and down the country.
	The message is simple: if the Government will the ends, they must will the means. They are not doing that in this report.

John Pugh: I shall be brief, because there is a danger that this debate can seem like an annual bleat to the Minister, in which a succession of MPs stand up and say how appalling things are in their area, and the Minister then winds up by saying that everything in the garden is lovely and they have never had it so good.
	I am a veteran at making complaints on behalf of my police authority, Merseyside. Those complaints date back to when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was in the Home Office. At that time, I went to see him with the then Conservative leader of my police authority—that was the only time that my police authority had a Conservative leader. We were shown into a room and treated very politely and courteously, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman listened to us from behind a desk the size of which I had never seen before, but at the end of the day we got absolutely nothing from him. Despite that, and despite a subsequent succession of discouraging experiences with Ministers, I remain optimistic that this Minister will respond to reason.
	The fact of the matter is that my residents still complain. They complain about standard things that residents in other parts of the country also complain about, including thin police cover, slow response and the constant rotation of staff and personnel. That is a particular problem in community policing. It is all very well for someone to bed themselves in their community, but if they are moved soon afterwards, as often happens in my neck of the woods, it creates an ongoing problem with no solution.
	I know, objectively, that the statistics are not favourably pitched for me to make my particular plea to the Minister because the per capita funding for Merseyside is pretty high—if not very high—compared with other authorities. The norm may not be good, but Merseyside is not comparatively worse off than other areas. However, Merseyside has its own problems. A significant amount of the Merseyside police authority budget goes on pensions. I was discouraged to learn the other day that, whereas in Manchester early retirements from the police authority are at 4 per cent., in Merseyside they are at 12 per cent. I ponder the reasons for that statistic, but that does not help more money to be distributed to police officers and less to pensions. We must also recognise, as does Merseyside police authority, that a problem of sickness in the force also consumes a certain amount of resources.
	The reality is that the people of Merseyside feel that policing is not all that it could be. Although crime is down, so is police presence. The people face a very high increase in the precept this year, and that is not just because of Merseyside's settlement. An awful lot of property across Merseyside is in band A, which makes a difference to the impact of the precept.
	I shall detain the Minister with an explanation of Merseyside's problems. It is not my explanation, but that offered by the retiring chief constable, Norman Bettison, to whom I pay tribute. He has done an exceptionally good job on Merseyside in his limited time there. He has made the entirely fair point that Liverpool is a port of access, which means a port of access for two major problems in this country at the moment: drugs and terrorism. The Government acknowledge that intellectually, and if they made inquiries in the police community I am sure that they would find the point entirely valid. But acknowledging something intellectually and doing so financially are not quite the same thing. As the chief constable would undoubtedly point out were he here, the situation on Merseyside—in comparison with the rest of the country—means that its police have to spend much time, resources and manpower on only a few, but none the less important, investigations into terrorism and the drugs trade. The areas that ultimately suffer from that include Southport, which is, in a sense, on the fringe.
	I simply ask the Minister for a little hope. I should like her to consider seriously the distribution of community wardens, whom the Home Office often allocates to the pathfinder areas.

George Howarth: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to his next point, which I anticipate will be important, may I make the point that my constituents, too, feel that the exceptional burdens on Merseyside police authority because of organised crime and the other difficulties that he has referred to should be better recognised in the formula? There should not be a financial penalty for living in an area that has a higher than normal amount of organised crime.

John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman knows from experience, including as an MP, what he is talking about. His point is well founded.
	Returning to community support officers, I have listened to hon. Members speak about how excellent and useful those wardens are. Certainly, when I come to London I find myself falling over them on my way into the Houses of Parliament. However, they are not on the streets of my constituency, where they could do such an important job in keeping down low-level crime, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) described. Will the Minister note that point? I am really asking her to give the force and the people of Merseyside—specifically the people of Southport—a little optimism that funding will recognise our genuine problems and needs. Even if what she offers is geared to Merseyside's having to sort out some of its housekeeping difficulties, that can only be progress, and a move in the right direction.

Simon Hughes: I am happy to participate in this debate. Until a few years ago, there was a regular debate on London policing but now that policing has, quite properly, been handed over to democratically elected local government, the only opportunity to raise such matters is in the context of the funding settlement. I am grateful, as are all of us who live and work in London, for the Metropolitan Police and all that they do for us. I pay tribute to them. That does not mean that one cannot sometimes be constructively critical over the way in which they go about their work, and we all reserve that right.
	I shall put clearly the position from which I come to the debate. I and my colleagues who are members of the London Assembly support the proposal put forward by the Metropolitan Police Authority for its budget. That proposal is higher than that which the Government are willing to fund, which is why there is a protest from London—across many party divides, and as cited in the letter from Sir Robin Wales, the chair of the Association of London Government and a Labour councillor—that the Government are not serving London well in the funding settlement on which we are to vote in a few minutes. That is why my London colleagues and I will vote against it. If we were to succeed in that vote, the Government would have to come back with something better. They would have to come back with more money from the taxpayer for policing, not just for London but for the other police authorities in England and Wales.
	London has about a quarter of England and Wales's police officers, and about a quarter of the budget. It is by a long way the largest authority. We have the highest rate of crime per person in England and Wales. That is not surprising; it is common to capital cities. As in many other places, crime is one of the top three concerns of the residents and, sadly, the figures are still far too high. We have more than 1 million recorded crimes in London every year. Everyone hopes that we can go the way of New York. I was there recently, and I saw a headline in the local paper which read, "Crime at its lowest for 35 years", which is a wonderful tribute.
	The Government have again come to a debate avoiding giving answers to some of the difficult questions, but we are pushing for answers. We pushed when the Conservatives were in government, and they promised that we would get answers. We did not, and we are now pushing for them from the Labour Government. Is the formula linked to the crime level? What is the link between paying for policing and the level of crime in an area? If crime goes down, should we expect to receive less? If London has a quarter of the crimes committed nationally, for example, should it expect to get a quarter of the Government budget for policing? Or should the funding relate to efficiency? Should a police authority be rewarded for bringing crime levels down? The Government never answered that question in describing the formula. Most importantly, what should be the Government's contribution—that is, the taxpayer's contribution—and what should be the council tax payer's contribution? We shall unarguably see a further significant imposition on council tax payers across the country, as a direct result of what the Government are proposing.

Ken Purchase: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is speaking for the capital city, and that is extremely important, but why should people with the highest per capita income in the country expect to get a greater fraction of taxpayers' money for their council purposes than people in the west midlands, for instance, who have a far lower per capita income and higher council tax to pay?

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly proper point. I am not arguing that case. He will know that there is a huge disparity in his region, as in mine, in that many people will be paying a large amount of council tax—because of the value of their property—although their income is small and they have no savings. They have one asset, namely their home, which they cannot realise. That is why my hon. Friends and I are clear, as we have been for so long, that the council tax is inappropriate and unfair. I believe that that case is being made increasingly effectively, and that we shall soon see an end to the council tax. I am not making an anti-west midlands case, or a case against any other police authority.
	I shall cite the relevant figures, not from a document that I have written but from that of Sir Robin Wales, who has said:
	"the disappointing treatment of the Metropolitan Police Authority means that the increase in grant to London overall"
	is 5.4 per cent. He makes the point—also made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)—that that effectively means that we shall lose £56 million, which will go into the general kitty for distribution elsewhere. That will mean the equivalent of a 9 per cent. precept. If that were not the case, there would not have to be that imposition on the London council tax payer.
	Everyone wants more police and more community support officers. Like the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who represents part of the London borough of Havering, I also support the idea that there should be a freedom to choose how we spend the money, and that we should not have ring-fenced funds for community support officers.
	The national and capital responsibilities budget has gone up, as the Minister rightly said, but it has gone up from £202 million to £207 million, which, by my calculation, is 2.5 per cent. I cannot believe that the additional work on those issues in London over the last year has only been 2.5 per cent.'s worth—that is even lower than the rate of inflation.
	There is a huge issue in relation to abstractions. I have some figures here for last year: Lambeth lost 3,400 police officers in abstractions to other, national duties; Southwark lost 3,100 officers; Merton lost 902; and Kingston lost 1,037. Those abstractions were for national anti-terrorism and other duties. If we consider all the reasons for abstractions, we see that my borough lost 597 officer days in the last year, and even boroughs at the bottom of the league table, in areas such as Bexley, for example, lost 227.
	Please, please, please, Government, get on with sorting out the pensions liability. The council tax payer is increasingly having to pay the pensions of yesteryear, rather than for the policing of today. Please also allow all parts of London to have the increase in policing that we want. I do not have the figures for Havering in front of me, but I know that in Southwark in March 1997, when this Government came to power, we had 1,157 police and civilians. In March 2000, we had 1,110, and now we have 1,014. We have fewer people in the police service in our borough now than in either 2000 or 1997. This is not a party matter: the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) joined us in our campaign.
	People in London want a fair settlement. They want the Government to pay their way, and they want a minimum policing guarantee for each community. I hope that, on this issue, whatever Ministers do in relation to the outgoing Mayor or to other matters, they will accept that the figure for policing in London should be agreed across the parties and should not be capped. If they want to cap the Mayor in other ways, they are entitled to do so, but policing in London needs to be protected. The Government should foot more of the bill, not the London council tax payer.

Hazel Blears: We have had a short debate but hon. Members have raised a number of important issues. I am pleased about that, because effective policing and community safety is one of the most pressing matters in the vast majority of our communities.
	I was a little disappointed that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) resurrected a policy that I thought had been put to bed, namely the Conservatives' proposal to increase the force by another 40,000 police officers. They have been remarkably quiet about that since the previous shadow Home Secretary left his post, and the new shadow Home Secretary has certainly not majored on that policy. The hon. Gentleman will recall, as I do, that in our debate on community policing a couple of months ago, how interesting it was to watch that figure of 40,000 being reduced to 20,000, and then to some 15,000, in the course of the debate.

James Paice: Rubbish.

Hazel Blears: That is absolutely the case. When the previous shadow Home Secretary said that the figure of 40,000 was based on two Tory terms of office, and that he could not predict whether there would be two such terms, we felt that he perhaps could not even predict one. I am surprised to see that figure being resurrected. Perhaps it should join the realms of crime fiction rather than crime fact.

James Paice: I want to place clearly on the record, for the avoidance of doubt, that our pledge for a further 40,000 police officers remains. It is calculated on the basis of an extra 5,000 a year, which the Minister knows full well is the most that can fairly be recruited, trained and added in addition to replacement officers. Is she or is she not telling us that there is a need for more police officers? Does she want more or not?

Hazel Blears: I think that the arithmetic is 5,000 a year over the first term of a Tory Government, making 20,000. So the promise can only be for 20,000, even if there is a Tory Government, and 5,000 of them would be recruited by us anyway, so we are down to 15,000. The whole House knows that all of that is predicated on the marvellous savings from the asylum system, based on the island that has not yet been identified. I was surprised to see the policy being resurrected in that way.
	The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the failure to apply the formula this year. Again, I am surprised if he is saying that he objects to the 3.25 per cent. flat rate across-the-board increase, because if we had applied the formula, many of the forces that I referred to earlier—Kent, Sussex and Surrey—would have lost out by millions of pounds. The vast majority of forces are gainers under the settlement this year. Only a small number, albeit including the Met, Greater Manchester and West Midlands, have made significant contributions to that pot. He did not make clear whether he wanted the other forces to lose out.
	The hon. Gentleman also made a point that he has made on a number of occasions and that I take real issue with. It is that everything should simply be at the local level and that there is no place for the matters that are funded through the central pots. Is he saying that there should be no central assistance through the police standards unit, helping to drive up performance in our forces? Is he saying that there should be no central assistance in developing evidence-based codes of practice around the way that we do our policing; no central assistance around training and Centrex; no central assistance around new technology, bringing in automatic number plate recognition and video identification, and expansion of the DNA database, which is leading to our forces being much more effective?
	There is a balance to be struck between the centre and the locality, but, as every other organisation in the country accepts, there is a case for having some functions, such as IT, training and human resources, funded properly and rationalised. I hope that people who take a sensible approach to the future effectiveness of our police service will recognise that.

George Howarth: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not having been here at the opening of the debate. I had another meeting elsewhere. Will she give some thought—I do not expect an immediate response—to the point that the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and I both made, that in looking at where the balance should be struck, the centre should take into account the presence of organised crime in areas such as Merseyside when the funding formula is reviewed or looked at again?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will know that, because of where I live, I am very conscious of the pressures of serious and organised crime along the M62 corridor from Greater Manchester to Liverpool. Merseyside has developed some extremely effective ways of dealing with it, but clearly that is at a cost to the force. In the consultation document that we launched last year on the long-term future of the police service, we wanted to make sure that we got right not only community policing, but also the structure to deal with serious and organised crime, which unfortunately is an increasing threat to our communities. I undertake to look further at that matter.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I should like to put to the Minister a matter that I have raised in correspondence with the Home Secretary: the cost of policing the Iraq war at RAF Fairford, which was more than £3 million on a budget of £36 million for Gloucestershire police, one of the smallest forces in the country. The Government have kindly undertaken to pay most of that, but the Gloucestershire police force still faces having to pay some of it. It causes a great deal of bad feeling in Gloucestershire, which had to put up with the disruption caused by the war. It was happy to do that, but as it was a national war effort it seems to me that the national Government should pay that cost. I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would look into the matter and write to me.

Hazel Blears: I am aware of the extra costs of policing RAF Fairford and the demonstrations there. The police did an extremely good and professional job in that very demanding situation. An application for special grants to meet the additional costs is being considered at the centre. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that for most forces there is a requirement to find a minimum amount towards the cost of special occasions that arise, and we would want to treat Gloucester similarly to other forces. I certainly undertake to look at the significant additional costs that the force incurred.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) made some excellent, serious and considered points about the challenges facing the Nottinghamshire police service. As he said, I am due to visit on Monday. I shall look at police performance and particularly at the extremely good partnership work with the local authority to tackle antisocial behaviour. I shall meet some of the victims of antisocial behaviour that has taken place in that community.
	I am delighted that police performance in the area has improved in recent times, but there were significant problems in the force in the past, as evidenced by the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. There is a great deal of support from the centre. The police standards unit has been engaged with the force for a considerable time. There is consultancy support to look at performance, new ways of working and new ways of tackling crime. The extra resource provided by the police standards unit comes to about £1 million. It has been pointed out to me by colleagues from Nottingham that although Nottingham is funded as a shire, it has metropolitan police problems. The formula takes into account the pressures, the challenges and the demographics for all authorities, however, and authorities are not funded as metropolitan or shire authorities.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that forces were underfunded. I do not accept that. In the past two years, police authorities have raised their precepts by a greater amount than they needed to meet the requirements—

It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker put the Question forthwith, pursuant to Order [2 February].
	The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 167.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Local Government Finance

Nick Raynsford: I beg to move,
	That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2004–05, HC 276, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
	On 11 December I announced to the House an enhanced provisional local government finance settlement, including a further £340 million made available by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the pre-Budget report. The proposals I have now presented to the House confirm that the total formula grant will be £46.1 billion in 2004–05, 5.5 per cent. more than in 2003–04. Additional specific grants take the overall increase to 7.3 per cent.
	This is not, of course, a one-off increase; it is part of a programme of sustained growth in investment in the vital public services delivered by local government. Overall, Government funding for English local authorities is up by 30 per cent. on that of the last seven years in real terms. That is in stark contrast with the previous four years, in which year-on-year cuts were the norm, resulting in a 7 per cent. real-terms funding cut during that period.
	Opposition Members, who are now showing clear evidence of selective amnesia, may wish to forget their responsibility for the realities of life in that era, when real-terms cuts were the order of the day. But those involved in local government do not have such short memories. They know the change that has occurred. They know that in 2004–05, for the second year running, all local authorities will receive a real-terms increase in formula grant on a like-for-like basis.

John Burnett: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I faxed his colleague the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), on 22 January to arrange a meeting with the Minister, the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter)—for whose support I am extremely grateful—and officials from West Devon borough council and Torridge district council. This contribution to floor has knocked a massive hole in the budgets of both councils. In effect, to stand still the ratepayers of West Devon borough council will have to pay an additional 6.75 per cent. How can the Minister justify that?

Nick Raynsford: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman simply has not given the House the full facts. He should recognise—perhaps he should tell his local authorities this—that Torridge is receiving a 3.6 per cent. increase, West Devon a 4.3 per cent. increase and Devon county council a 4.5 per cent. increase.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nick Raynsford: Those are real-terms increases that are well above the rate of inflation, and we expect local authorities to work within the finance available to them, and to look for economies in order to deliver value for money and quality services to their residents.

Barry Gardiner: As my right hon. Friend knows, I have argued vehemently with him on many occasions at this time of year about the settlement for my own local authority. This year, I want simply to say two words to him: the first is "thank" and the second is "you".

Nick Raynsford: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. As he knows, his authority received an increase of 7.5 per cent., which is a realistic and very good settlement. I sincerely hope that the people of Brent will see good value for money from their local authority.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I understand that all Members want to intervene and I shall try to provide opportunities for them, but first I need to make some progress.

Anthony Steen: Is this such an opportunity?

Nick Raynsford: No, it is not, but I have no doubt that we will hear from South Hams in due course.
	Some councils have queried what is meant by a real-terms increase in formula grant on a like-for-like basis. The basic principle is clear enough. From one year to the next, the responsibilities of local authorities or the way in which they are financed may change. If we were to compare grant paid to an authority from one year to another without taking account of that—for example, councils are no longer responsible for funding part of the cost of certain benefits—we would be making a misleading comparison. So for the purposes of a like-for-like comparison, we recalculate the previous year's settlement as if the change had already happened. The following year's grant is then calculated on that basis. That is the only proper and fair way. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not accept that ever since this Government came to power, they have consistently loaded yet greater burdens on small borough councils in particular—Surrey Heath is an example—and that the funding to perform their functions has simply not followed? So the Government are not dealing with the situation fairly; they are loading on burdens and not providing the money. Whenever the director of finance for my borough council checks the figures announced by the Government, it is discovered that the money is not as much as the Government pretend through the Minister's statements.

Nick Raynsford: For the second year running, every local authority in the country—including the hon. Gentleman's two district councils and Surrey county council—has received above-inflation increases. A county council receiving a 7.7 per cent. increase would have been completely unthinkable when his party was in power, so I would have expected to hear a little more realism and a little less complaint.
	I owe an apology to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), because I gave him a slightly incorrect answer. The figures that I gave were the average increases in formula grant over the past seven years, but of course, this year's settlement is even better. Let me now put the record straight by giving him the figures for this year: for Torridge an increase of 4.9 per cent.; for West Devon an increase of 5.3 per cent.; and for Devon county council an increase of 5.5 per cent. I hope that he will take those good figures back to his local authorities and tell them that he expects them to budget prudently and deliver efficient services without the need for large council tax increases.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I recognise that we are in Devon territory, so I give way to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen).

Anthony Steen: My concern is less with how much extra moneys the Government are providing, though no one is against that; what I am against is asking council tax payers to pay more and more every year. In Devon last year, it was about 18 per cent., with the rate of inflation at around 2 per cent. On the settlement for Devon and Torbay, is the Minister telling me that the local authority should not increase its council tax more than the rate of inflation?

Nick Raynsford: What I am saying to councils throughout the country, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard it, is that we are giving good increases. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the increases in his authorities: South Hams has an increase of 3.9 per cent.; Teignbridge of 3.9 per cent.; Torbay of 6.9 per cent.; and Devon county council, as we have already mentioned, 5.5 per cent. Those are all good increases, all above inflation. What I am saying is that, with those increases, we expect councils to budget for low single figure increases.
	On the question of pressures on councils to increase the level of council tax, let me remind the hon. Member for Totnes—it would be wise of him and Conservative Front Benchers to be aware of it—of what happened when the Conservatives were in power. When the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was the Secretary of State and doing a similar job to mine in 1996—I am a mere Minister of State, rather than Secretary of State, but I am doing the same job of announcing the settlement—he said: "The increase in AEF"—
	aggregate external finance, not the grant, which was a lot less—
	"is 2.8 per cent.—less than the increase in TSS—because we take the view, which I believe the Opposition share, that council tax payers should properly fund a slightly larger proportion of the costs of their local services."—[Official Report, 31 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 1021.]
	A year later, in 1997, he said:
	"The increase in aggregate external finance is less than the increase in total standard spending, reflecting the Government's belief"—
	he did not have a very good speech writer, repeating almost word for word the previous year's formula—
	"that local taxpayers could meet slightly more of the cost of local services."—[Official Report, 3 February 1997; Vol. 289, c. 680.]
	So when the Conservatives were in government, they clearly believed that local taxpayers should pay more. We believe that recent increases are excessive and that local council tax payers have every reason to object to the large demands placed on them. As I have said, we expect authorities to budget now for low single figures. It is sheer hypocrisy on the part of Conservative Members to complain about pressure on the council tax given that, when they were in power, they were encouraging increases in council tax because of the inadequacy of the settlements.

David Curry: Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat what he said here yesterday—that although he expects councils to budget in low single figures, that is not necessarily the figure on which capping might be applied? What is the figure at which capping will be applied?

Nick Raynsford: I am pleased to discuss capping with the right hon. Gentleman, who was responsible for the same matter when he was in power. Let me remind him of what he had to say on that particular subject in his winding-up speech of 1996. It was a very funny one. As the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, the right hon. Gentleman said:
	"It is not often that, in a debate on local government finance, one can begin with Procrustes".
	He had, as he said, done his research. Procrustes
	"apparently lay in wait in the Athens road and equipped people who came for lodgings with a bed that was not necessarily the right size. If the people were too long, he chopped them. I did not realise that capping had such a distinguished antecedent, but I am encouraged to know that I follow in such a long tradition. I understand that Theseus fastened Procrustes to his own bed and chopped his head off—he had clearly missed his vocation as a local government Minister."—[Official Report, 31 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 1090.]
	That was what the right hon. Gentleman said eight years ago. In those days he believed in the road to Athens; clearly, he has been on the road to Damascus since then.

Angela Browning: I hope that the Minister will stop messing about and answer my question. The Devon fire and rescue service will set its own precept for the first time this year, and I am very worried that the formula set out by the Government will have an adverse effect, not least because Devon has more retained firefighters than any other county. Meeting the pay award for retained firefighters will account for 23 per cent. of the budget, not 16 per cent. If Devon had received the national average amount, it would not suffer the projected budget shortfall that people fear will cause fire station closures, especially in rural areas. The £2 million that is the difference between what Devon will get and the national average would have resolved the problem. Without going back into history, will the Minister say something about the future of Devon's fire and rescue services?

Nick Raynsford: I am happy to talk about Devon. As the hon. Lady knows, I have visited the county and discussed this issue. People are naturally worried about it, but I have told them the same thing as I have told people elsewhere: we expect councils and all authorities—including the fire and police authorities—to budget prudently and to keep council tax levels down. We look to them to aim for increases in the low single figures.
	As I have made clear on previous occasions, we do not operate a crude and universal capping system, so we are not saying that anything above a certain level will be capped. That would not be an appropriate way to proceed, but we will use our capping powers if we believe that any authority is imposing an unreasonably large increase. We will take proper account of relevant factors in that decision, but I put all authorities, including those for fire and police services, on notice that they must budget prudently, and that we will use our capping powers if necessary.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I will give way when I have finished answering this question. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) asked specifically about fire authorities. There are concerns, for example, about the need for the new combined fire authorities to build up reserves. I have written to fire authorities on that point, quoting advice from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. I have said that authorities do not need to move immediately to the level of reserves that they might consider necessary. I have suggested that the new combined authorities might wish to discuss with their previous constituent authorities an arrangement that could give them the cover that they want. In that way, the new authorities would not have to make large provision for reserves in any one year.
	I have also touched on other issues with the combined authorities, and my officials will meet representatives from all fire authorities tomorrow. The aim is to explore further the practical help that the Government can give to ensure that fire authorities, while keeping their precepts down, can meet their responsibilities and drive forward the modernisation programme that is so important in the fire service. The levels of precept that we have been hearing about are not acceptable. They would be regarded as far too high in a year when local authorities are generally beginning to recognise that they must keep council tax levels down.

Bob Blizzard: I hope that my right hon. Friend will use the capping powers if necessary, but he will know that, for many councils, a significant proportion of the budget increase is accounted for by the amounts that they must pay into pension funds to make up shortfalls. Councils have no choice about making those payments, which have a large impact on council tax levels. Moreover, the people who have to pay council tax are angry, because they see no benefit from the extra money that they have to pay. What can my right hon. Friend say to councils about that problem?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. My colleague the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), has issued guidance to local authorities on this matter. We are keeping it under close review, as we know the real concerns that local authorities have. We shall continue to work with them to ensure that their pension obligations can be met in a way that does not impose undue burdens and unreasonable pressures on council tax payers.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I want to make some progress, as I have not made much for the past 10 minutes. However, I will give way in a little while.
	We certainly expect councils, like any well run organisations, continually to improve their efficiency, and to make better use of their funding. Council tax payers, many of whom are justifiably concerned about what they will face in the coming year, expect nothing less.
	The Government will help in that. For example, we are putting in place a number of measures to secure improvements in local government procurement, through our national procurement strategy. We are also building cost-effectiveness and value for money assessments into the comprehensive performance assessment framework for 2005 onwards. We expect all councils to budget prudently and search out savings and economies to ensure that they deliver value for money to council tax payers.
	During the consultation period, we received 454 written representations from local authority groups, individual local councils and hon. Members. The Under-Secretary and I met representatives from the Local Government Association, the Association of London Government and groups representing the main classes of local authority, and I shall deal briefly with the main points that were raised. A number of authorities with education responsibilities argued that they should not be expected to increase their spending on schools by the exact amount of the increase in schools' formula spending share—so-called passporting.

Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend find it as extraordinary as I do that Cambridgeshire county council, which received an 8.5 per cent. increase in this year's grant and has been promised a 7.9 per cent. increase in next year's grant, is still having enormous difficulty in passporting the 6.8 per cent. increase in its schools budget on to schools without raising the council tax by 9 per cent.?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend raises a valid point and I have good news for her. As a result of the final adjustments to the settlement, Cambridgeshire county council will receive an increase in the coming year of 8 per cent., not 7.9 per cent. The increase is only modest, but most authorities would regard 8 per cent. as a good figure. Even if Cambridgeshire county council were to passport 100 per cent. of the increase in its schools budget, it would still be left with considerable headroom to fund other services.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards have been in touch with Cambridgeshire county council, and I hope that the issue can be resolved sensibly and amicably. Recent discussions have been constructive and I hope that a settlement will be achieved, because large council tax increases in Cambridgeshire cannot be justified when the Government settlement was so generous both this year and last.

Derek Conway: The House knows that the Minister is a decent man. He can avoid Devon but he cannot avoid my constituency because he has to drive through it. My constituents want to know what he is saying to his chums who run the local council. They experienced a 17.5 per cent. council tax increase last year and everybody expects the increase to be well into double figures this year. He is the arbiter and has the power to cap such increases. Rather than delving into history and being such a reasonable man, will he please be a hard man and tell the council that it is not going to get away with it and that he will stop it?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is also a reasonable man, but he should pay a little more attention to geography. Although his constituency is close to mine and I often travel through it, I do not need to drive through it between my constituency and Westminster because it lies to the east. I will give him the exactly the same message as I would give the local authority in Bexley and, indeed, other authorities: I expect local authorities to budget prudently. Bexley has a 4.3 per cent. grant increase in the coming year, which is well above inflation, and I expect it to keep the council tax demand down to low single figures in just the same way as I expect all other authorities to keep council tax down. Bexley has achieved an excellent rating under the comprehensive performance assessment, and in a sense excellent authorities are almost duty bound to show other authorities how to budget prudently, deliver excellent quality services and achieve value for money.

Clive Betts: The good news is that Sheffield council will get its council tax increase down to low single figures. However, because it has rightly followed Government advice and passed on the welcome increases in education and social services spending to those services, the increase in grant for other services is only 1.3 per cent. at a time when there is a widespread desire for environmental improvements. When we were in opposition, many of us spoke out against capping on many occasions, and some of us remain to be convinced that the principle of capping is any more right now than it was in the early 1990s.

Nick Raynsford: I understand my hon. Friend's position, which has remained consistent. The Opposition might have changed their position—

Eric Pickles: So have you.

Nick Raynsford: No, we have maintained our position. Before taking office, we made it clear that we would retain reserve capping powers. We did not want to use them and, in fact, we have not made widespread use of them, but as the Audit Commission made clear in its report, published shortly before Christmas, the assumption by local government that we would not use capping powers was probably one of the factors that contributed to last year's unreasonably large council tax increases. To avoid any uncertainty, we have made it clear that we have the reserve powers that, as we said before we took office, we would use if necessary, and this year we will use them unless local authorities heed the warning and keep their council tax increases down.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I shall make a bit more progress before I give way again.
	I was talking about the importance of education when my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) asked a question. I was emphasising that the Government have always been clear about the priority that we attach to education—a priority shared by parents, governors and teachers in every area. I am pleased that, in general, authorities have made it clear that they, too, share that priority, by increasing school spending broadly in line with schools formula spending share.
	Last year, some authorities were expected to increase school spending by more in cash terms than their formula grant increase. We accept that that caused difficulties for some authorities and this year we have dealt with the problem by guaranteeing that every authority will receive a grant increase at least large enough to match their schools' FSS increase. Some authorities that benefit from that complain that they have no money for other services. That is simply wrong; it overlooks two facts. First, those authorities are receiving more grant than they would otherwise receive from the general grant settlement. Secondly, schools are not funded solely from Government grant, and no doubt councils will want to continue to contribute to the cost from locally raised revenue.
	Some concerns were expressed over the distribution to authorities of the new money—£340 million—made available in the pre-Budget report. It is worth repeating the basis of that distribution. The extra £340 million was added to revenue support grant but not to formula spending share, thus reducing the assumed national council tax. That reduction was shared among authorities so that the extra grant was directed to classes of authority with responsibility for children's social services and the liveability agenda. The resulting grant distribution was subjected to floors and ceilings at the increased level.

Michael Jabez Foster: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I give way to my hon. Friend, who I think is about to raise a question on that very subject.

Michael Jabez Foster: Yes. Is not the problem that when the Chancellor explained that the extra money would be available, it was described as a benefit that would enable authorities to restrict council tax, yet in East Sussex no extra money came from the second grant? However, East Sussex has received a 37 per cent. increase, which is why capping should be pursued; under the previous Tory Government, cuts of 7 per cent. were the norm, so the current situation is completely different.

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those comments. He is right to point out that East Sussex has received a good increase—

Gary Streeter: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Raynsford: I am answering a question—I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
	Six authorities received no significant grant increase as a result of the extra £340 million, but that was due to the specific arrangement for supporting authorities with education responsibilities, which would not have had sufficient grant to meet the passporting requirement without an uplift. In the original provisional settlement announced in November, that uplift took their entitlement above the level of the new floor brought in after the additional payment of £340 million from the pre-Budget report statement. They had thus already received an uplift that took them above the level that they would have reached with the additional payment. I realise that sounds complicated, but the issue is complicated and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) will see that that is the reason for what might otherwise appear to be a slightly unfair outcome.

Gary Streeter: On the issue of floors, may I take the Minister back to his comments to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), who will be sadly missed when he retires at the end of this Parliament—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]
	The Minister said that West Devon borough council had received an increase of 5.3 per cent. this year, which, on a budget of £6.5 million, is £332,000, but that is before the contribution of £167,000 to the floor and thus leaves an increase of only £165,000. That is what the treasurer of West Devon borough council told me today. The increase is not 5.3 per cent., and the actual amount does not leave the council enough money to deal with the extra burdens placed on it by the Government. What does the Minister have to say to that?

Nick Raynsford: I have two things to say to that. First, I shall happily look into any figure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to send to me, but on the face of it West Devon council's treasurer's proposition is, frankly, curious. The floor is the level of guaranteed minimum for all authorities—for district councils, it is 3 per cent.—so there is no question of the floor taking down a settlement. A floor lifts a settlement, and there is absolutely no way in which a 5.3 per cent. increase, which is the figure that West Devon will receive, is reduced by the floor.
	A separate issue relates to the specific arrangements for the reimbursement of costs incurred in council tax benefit and hosing benefit payments. I shall explain that technical issue in a moment. Some district councils have been troubled by it, but it is the only possible circumstance where I can envisage West Devon might not achieve the 5.3 per cent. figure.

Tony McWalter: There is another circumstance to which I hope my right hon. Friend will give careful attention. In district and borough councils such as my own—Dacorum borough council—negative subsidy operates at ever-increasing, ratcheting levels, so the effect is to create a trapdoor in the floor. Will he carefully consider whether that trapdoor should be sealed permanently?

Nick Raynsford: There is no trapdoor and no negative subsidy in the revenue support grant mechanism. My hon. Friend may be referring to a different regime—possibly the housing subsidy regime—but there is certainly no question of any trapdoor or negative subsidy in the local government settlement.

Adrian Flook: The right hon. Gentleman is only a Minister of State, as he said, in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Taunton Deane is getting a 3.3 per cent. increase, but with reductions for rent allowance, council tax benefit and non-HRA rent allowance, its increase is only 1.49 per cent. Will he therefore address his remarks to that increase?

Nick Raynsford: As I told the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), I shall explain the technically complex issue of council tax and housing benefit subsidy when I reach that point in my speech, rather than dealing with it twice.
	I have covered the issues that relate to the way in which the additional sums have been added to the settlement following the pre-Budget report. Let us move on to the floors and ceilings—an issue that has attracted a certain amount of comment. The floor receives general support—of course that is a rather obvious point. I cannot fail to notice a curious reluctance among authorities to propose a means of paying for that floor from a fixed pot of grant. The concerns to which the hon. Member for South-West Devon referred in respect of West Devon council might relate to the fact that, because it is an above-floor authority, it is making a contribution towards the floor. That does not reduce its 5.3 per cent. grant increase, which comes after the application of the floors and ceilings. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that those authorities above the floor contribute through either the scaling factor or the ceiling towards the cost of the floor. That is part of a framework that ensures that every authority is guaranteed at least a 3 per cent. increase—a point that we will come back to.
	There is a curious reluctance to pay for the floor. Indeed, authorities affected by the ceiling complained that they should have received a larger grant increase. Some claimed that they had funding entitlements withheld. I want to correct that misapprehension. The formula grant distribution system distributes a fixed pot of grant among authorities. The basis for the distribution of formula grant to local authorities in England next year is defined in the local government finance report for 2004–05, which we are debating this evening. Local authorities can expect to receive formula grant as calculated using the report, which combines formulae and floors and ceilings. We have always made it clear that there are no entitlements in the grant distribution system, and the Government cannot be said to owe grant to any authority. Interestingly, the authorities that received the largest overall grant increases are the most vocal in criticising the effect of the ceiling.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister said that local authorities were expected to contribute to the cost of the floor through the cost of the ceiling. Will he explain how that mechanism works, or is it the case that there is a trapdoor in the floor?

Nick Raynsford: The system is relatively straightforward. The floor guarantees that no authority will receive less than a specific level of grant so that authorities have certainty that they can budget ahead on the assumption that their grant from the Government will not fall unreasonably from year to year—stability and certainty are important in local government. Local authorities warmly welcome the floor. However, the uplift for authorities that would otherwise receive less than the floor must be paid for. It is paid for by reducing the amount paid to authorities that would have received more than the floor, which is achieved via two mechanisms. First, we apply a scaling factor so that authorities that are a little bit above the floor make a small contribution toward the floor and, secondly, we set a ceiling, which is the maximum entitlement that any authority can receive. Authorities that are above the floor contribute a tapered amount until the point at which they reach the ceiling, when they receive no more than the full amount of the ceiling. The mechanism has been discussed and agreed with local government, and it is widely supported in local government because it gives certainty and is considered to be fair. Inevitably, the authorities that are nearest to or at the ceiling complain about it because they know that they would have got more money but for the arrangement.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I see whether I have got this right? If local authorities are near the floor, they may scale to the ceiling; and if they are going to go through the ceiling, they are put down through the floor again—is that correct?

Nick Raynsford: No, I am sorry. I shall not weary the House by going through it all again.

Angela Browning: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you arrange for a master class to be held on the subject so that we may get on with the debate?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Thank goodness, that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Nick Raynsford: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must say that I did arrange a series of seminars a year and a bit ago when we were introducing the new grant distribution formula. I tried to explain the floors and ceilings mechanism then, but clearly I failed. I was about to tell the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that when authorities reach the ceiling, they do not go down again because they remain on the ceiling. [Laughter.] They remain attached to the ceiling by a magical system.

Sue Doughty: Half my constituency is in Waverley borough council. I have a small semi-rural constituency, so it has unavoidable costs. We have had a lot of problems. The council was supposed to receive a 3.2 per cent. increase, but that turns out to be 0.3 per cent. If one does a like-for-like comparison, as the Minister suggested, the formula grant has reduced by an assumed or notional sum of £630,000 for rent allowances and council tax benefits, but the money coming back from the Department for Work and Pensions grant is only £490,000. In addition to that—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a rather lengthy intervention.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Lady raises a point to which I have already alluded: the council tax benefit and housing tax benefit subsidy arrangements. I shall explain the arrangements and point out why the way in which she presented the situation is not quite accurate—it is more complex than she implied.
	We are taking the remaining steps over the coming year to rationalise full support for housing and council tax benefit in the hands of the Department for Work and Pensions, rather than continuing to reflect a notional share of the cost in the formula grant. Most people would agree that the way in which council tax and housing benefit subsidy is currently reimbursed—the majority is refunded in response to claims submitted on the basis of actual payments by DWP, with a notional 5.5 per cent. added to the revenue support grant—is not a logical or sensible way to continue. Local government wanted to rationalise that, which we have done.
	When one rationalises a scheme that is divided into two different elements—one making payments in relation to actual audited figures, and the other a notional amount paid in advance, relating to assumed costs—in a demand-led service such as council tax or housing benefit, there is bound to be some discrepancy, because one cannot accurately forecast the case for every authority. That is the present situation.
	The figures given by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) reflect the current position, where it appears that the level in the revenue support grant in the current year may not have been sufficient to cover the actual cost incurred by the authority in that proportion of the total that should be covered by revenue support grant. The discrepancy is nothing new. As I shall explain in a moment, we are trying to ensure that all authorities have a safeguard provided by the Minister responsible, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), to ensure that there is a transitional arrangement limiting any reduction to 0.5 per cent. of the total budgeted cost of benefits. I hope that that message will soon get through to the hon. Lady's authority and to others that are troubled by the prospect of losing grant as a result of changes in the arrangement.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister presents an image of yogic flying councils floating above the floor, which I had not encountered before.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned his visit to Devon county council. Is it not extraordinary that, wherever he goes, he hears from directors of finance—Jan Stanhope, in the case of Devon county—who disagree with the figures produced by his Department? Is it conceivable that, year after year, the Minister says that one set of figures is right and the directors of finance say that the other set of figures is right, with the public in between being confused? Is it not time that the Minister sent his officials down to places such as Devon to sit down and work out where the problem lies—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has got the hon. Gentleman's point.

Nick Raynsford: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman does not give an accurate presentation of the situation in Devon. Some of the evidence submitted by the director of finance in Devon that my officials reported to me when I went to that meeting indicated a not fully complete understanding of the grant distribution system and the requirements on the local authority. There was some concern among my officials that the presentation had been rather politically clouded in the case of Devon county council.

Alan Duncan: I refer to the Minister's explanation of the way the formula works, and of the floors and ceilings. For a very small county such as Rutland, a formula designed for much larger units invariably throws out some pretty funny figures. Following our exchange of letters today, will he confirm that he will allow the officers of the council to see a suitably appointed Sir Humphrey in his Department to discuss the numbers that have been produced, so that as grown-ups we can resolve a simple matter that requires a small adjustment?

Nick Raynsford: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. I recognise that there are special circumstances in a very small authority such as Rutland. It gets a good overall percentage grant increase of 6.8 per cent. but there are specific issues that he has raised, and I am happy for my officials to discuss them in a sensible and grown-up way.
	I have described the changes from the formulaic to the reimbursement regime in relation to council tax benefit and housing benefit. I shall now go on to the census—

Paul Beresford: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I will not give way; I need to make some progress.
	The census has also been a cause of concern. A number of authorities made points about data, and in particular data based on the 2001 census. Some were disappointed that we had not been able to incorporate socio-economic data from the census in the settlement proposed. We were simply unable to do so, as not all the data were available in time. Moreover, using those data will be more complicated than merely putting them into the existing formulae.
	Re-analysing the expenditure figures using updated socio-economic data will inevitably point to new formulae, because the relative importance of the factors will change. We may need to change the factors in the formulae as a result. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will take this work forward in discussion with the local authority associations. The Office for National Statistics has revised its mid-year population estimates, and is continuing work in some areas that may lead to further changes. I have already given a commitment that we will amend the 2003–04 settlement, which was made using the best population figures available. I expect to do so in parallel with the settlement for 2005–06, taking account of the latest available figures, which the ONS will publish in August this year.
	We are committed to the new burdens principle. If we ask local authorities to take on a new role, we accept an obligation to ensure that they have the ability to fund their new responsibilities adequately. A great deal of concern has been expressed about the effect on councils of the new licensing role that they are required to undertake from September. We have made it quite clear to local government that when the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport sets the guidance and fees she will do so in a way that ensures that authorities can recover their costs. That will cover the licensing authority's costs associated with the administration, inspection and enforcement. There will also be an independent review of the costs and income after the end of the transitional period.

Eric Pickles: What about start-up costs?

Nick Raynsford: There are, of course, issues in the first year, some of which relate to start-up costs and others to the fact that enforcement obligations do not arise. Those issues need to be looked at in the round to try to ensure that there is a genuine settlement that allows authorities over a period of time to recover their full costs—that is what we are seeking to achieve.
	After considering points that were made in consultation, I can confirm the basis of grant distribution that I proposed on 11 December following the pre-Budget report. We have considered representations and made corrections to the data used where justified. There have also been changes in individual council allocations to allow for the updating of data, in particular on capital allocations and council tax base. Those updates are made each year. Finally, we have been able to incorporate a small change in population estimates published by the ONS on 27 January relating to naval personnel, which is primarily of interest to Plymouth and Portsmouth.

Simon Hughes: In the period between the provisional settlement and the final one, the Mayor of London, who was elected as an independent, became a Labour mayor. Has there been a change in the settlement for the Greater London Authority, and will the rule that applies elsewhere apply to the GLA—low, single-figure increases only will be acceptable and if the Mayor introduces anything higher he will be capped like anybody else?

Nick Raynsford: I have already explained to the Liberal Democrats in a previous debate that the arrangements for the GLA budget are slightly more convoluted than for other authorities, as there is a dialogue between the Mayor and the authority. That is why we did not act immediately when rumours first began about the level of council tax precept. At this stage, however, we understand that the Mayor is proceeding with a proposal for an increase of 9.9 per cent., which is certainly not in low, single figures. I shall write to him, as indeed I have written to all local authorities that have provided indications.
	In case there is any confusion—this matter was raised earlier by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—I remind the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that our decision on capping will take into account the circumstances of each individual authority and there will not be a blanket figure. It would be wrong to assume that we are imposing a blanket cap.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I shall take one more intervention, but then I must make progress.

Andrew Love: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that message for my local authority, Enfield, which will receive a 6 per cent. grant increase, yet is discussing the possibility of a 7.5 per cent. increase in council tax next year? When added to the GLA precept, that will be four or five times the rate of inflation, and is causing considerable concern among various groups in the area. I therefore urge the Minister to confirm that he will write to Enfield and take action if it exceeds a reasonable increase.

Nick Raynsford: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that I wrote to the London borough of Enfield on 30 January.

David Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Nick Raynsford: I am afraid I cannot, as I wish to make progress. The time for debate is limited and many hon. Members wish to speak.
	Given the significant extra investment and the scope for efficiency improvements, our view is that next year local authorities can and should deliver council tax increases in low, single figures. I am pleased to say that the initial indications that I have show that many councils agree with those points and are considering budgets that would be consistent with that objective: some, however, are not. I must therefore make it absolutely clear that we are prepared to use our capping powers on any authority, including police and fire authorities, if that proves necessary. We will decide on the criteria in the light of authorities' budget decisions.
	This is another good settlement for local government. We listened to local government's views on the spending pressures that they face, and met them. We provided a real-terms increase in funding for all authorities and helped them to plan ahead by freezing the formula for a period of years and by continuing with the use of floors and ceilings. We adapted the system to provide greater certainty on school funding and reduced the ring-fencing of Government grant by £750 million. Given that, and the improvements in efficiency that councils are making and will want to make in future, we expect councils to deliver better services at a reasonable cost in council tax. I commend the settlement to the House.

Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for you to advise the House on when the winding-up speeches are going to begin? Given that we have only an hour left, it looks as though this debate may be unique in that we could move straight from the opening speeches to the winding-up speeches without the debate ever touching the Back Benches. Perhaps you and Mr. Speaker could consider how the interests of Back Benchers can be protected against Ministers speaking for 50 minutes in a debate of only two hours.

Andrew Bennett: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would you not accept that most of the time taken up by the Minister's speech was on interventions, and that if Conservative Members had kept quiet, it would have been a much shorter speech?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister was generous in the number of interventions that he allowed. Mr. Speaker has tried to protect Back Benchers by imposing a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. We will now see how the debate proceeds.

David Curry: As far as this debate is concerned, clearly the floor has already hit the ceiling, and there is nothing between the two. It is a matter of some regret that we are discussing in just two hours the disposal of about 25 per cent. of public expenditure. I am afraid that that is a reflection on priorities, and I think that the business managers should get together to ensure that in future we can have proper debates on matters of such importance.
	The Government's handling of local government finance over the past 12 months has been characterised by incompetence, confusion, panic, and now intimidation: incompetence, because the Government utterly failed to foresee, then to get to grips with the dislocation caused by the application of a new formula—rigged, as it happens, to drag money to Labour metropolitan areas; confusion, because the Government sought desperately to bail themselves out by ordering the passporting of education funding, while all the time the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, whose blundering had caused the problems in the first place, sought to blame everyone except himself for the mess; panic, because the Government threw money at this year's settlement without sorting out the inevitable problems that flow from the Secretary of State's pre-emptive strike by prescribing the distribution of schools funding from Whitehall; and now, intimidation as the Government try a combination of cash and confrontation to bludgeon councils into setting a council tax increase in "low single figures"—or is it a "reasonable" increase—accompanied by an increasingly histrionic letter-writing habit that suggests that even the Minister has scant faith that the settlement will stand up as reasonable in its own right?
	The Government are right to feel panic. Last year's incompetence has led to massive council tax rises because the Government decreed additional spending, but failed to provide for it in grant. The council tax increases were the direct consequence of the Government's miscalculations, as the Audit Commission made clear. So now we are back—with a vengeance—to crude and universal capping. Even the Deputy Prime Minister mocked himself—at least it saved us the trouble—when he talked yesterday about "exercising his sophisticated view" in implementing capping, and could hardly conceal his smile.
	Capping has an interesting pedigree. The Minister quoted my reference to Procrustes when I was doing my job, as he is doing his. That reference was double-edged, which is why I used it, and it turned out to be right in the end. In June 1993, the now Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said:
	"The Labour party is wholly and unequivocally opposed to the capping of a council's budget. It is an abuse of central power, it demeans democracy, it undermines the right of local people to decide what services they are ready and willing to pay for, it is in breach of one promise after another from the Conservative party, it serves no economic purpose, and it has not worked in its own terms."—[Official Report, 9 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 385.]
	That statement continues to be true. Everyone learns in retrospect. The Government had 13 years in which to learn, but they failed to do that.
	Does the Minister remember his perorations about the new freedoms for councils that perform well? Is he aware of the sheer effort and energy that go into preparing for comprehensive performance assessment inspections? Does he remember the praise that he heaped on councils that were rated excellent, while encouraging those that were merely good to make one last heave? Does he know that, of the councils that received threatening letters from him and had a CPA inspection, nine were rated excellent: five Conservative, three Labour and one without overall control—Hartlepool—and 15 were rated good: five Conservative, two Labour, two Liberal Democrat and six without overall control? Does he remember that, in December 2002, the Deputy Prime Minister promised that excellent and good councils would be exempted from reserve capping powers?
	We are now in the perverse position whereby councils that are rated excellent are awarded freedoms, but may be capped, while poor councils have no freedoms, but may not be capped. That is not the only perversity. On the first day of the new financial year, the Department removed controls on capital but enforced controls on revenue through capping. I understand that it is called the new localism

Paul Beresford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is curious that whenever the Minister mentions capping, he refers to one of his favourite Tory councils? It is an excellent council, which he keeps threatening with capping, but charges the lowest average council tax in the country. It is Wandsworth.

David Curry: It will be interesting to note whether the Minister takes into account the absolute level of council tax when he determines his capping criteria.
	There is a third perversity. The Government have created turbulence and introduced the famous floors and ceilings to control it. However, there are two sets of floors and ceilings. The interaction of floors and ceilings for the general grant and that for education expenditure means that, for some local authorities, the entire grant increase must go to education. Those authorities are: Richmond, East Sussex, West Sussex—which has a princely total grant increase of £6,000—Windsor and Maidenhead, Southend and Bromley, which last year had to increase education spending by more than the increase in the entire grant for all purposes.

Nick Raynsford: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would like to correct the impression that he gave that West Sussex received a total grant increase of only £6,000. That is not the case. He is referring to the supplement as a result of the Chancellor's pre-Budget report. The increase to West Sussex is much larger.

David Curry: The bonus that West Sussex received was, for the reasons explained, a princely £6,000.
	The distribution is skewed. London faces a £247 band D precept from Mr. Livingstone. After the distribution of £340 million in central grant, the increases after passporting are 6.6 per cent. for Labour councils, 6 per cent. for Liberal Democrat councils and 2.5 per cent. for Conservative councils. Labour councils have got nine out of 10 of the highest settlements and Conservative councils have got seven out of 10 of the lowest settlements.
	We do not even know how capping will work. Is reasonableness a criterion? Are low single figures a criterion? Yesterday, the Minister said that he had written to 54 authorities that were rumoured to be planning increases of more than 5 per cent. He also said:
	"That is not necessarily an indication of the level at which we will cap".—[Official Report, 4 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 746.]
	What is the level? The word on the street is 7 per cent. There is a host of questions to be asked. The Minister said that he will cap police authorities, but at what level? It is all very well saying that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has given advice on the reserves to be constituted by fire authorities, but the wonderfully magic word "prudent" is attached. What is a prudent level of reserves for fire authorities?
	Will the Minister relate capping to grant increases? Will he recognise the impact of floors and ceilings? Will he take account of the absolute level as well as the percentage increase of council tax when considering whether to cap? Let us consider a council such as Runnymede in Surrey. It currently charges £85.10 at band D, which makes it the second lowest in the country, against an assumed national average of £181.56. That council proposes to charge £100.44—an increase of 17.5 per cent.—partly because of the hit caused by the calculation of council tax benefit. It has written to the Minister to confess. It has put its hands up, but it will leave its precept as one of the lowest in the country. Can it expect a letter or is it a special case?

Andrew Bennett: On the question of the cap, I accept all the problems that the right hon. Gentleman has outlined for the Government, but where does his party stand? Would it have a cap if it were ever in government? If not, would he go round the country to justify the council tax increases of 9 per cent., 10 per cent. or higher in most local authorities?

David Curry: If we were in government, we would not have got into this mess in the first place. We would not have rigged the formula, we would not have betrayed the excellent councils and we would not have imposed the burdens on local government that this Government have.
	Does the Minister recall that the figure for Kent to which he objected was in a council document that reproduced the Treasury's estimate of the increase in council tax as a yield of 7.3 per cent.? In fact, that was wrong because the Treasury's figure for the assumed yield from council tax is an 8.2 per cent. increase, which is rather higher than low single figures.
	Now we hear, at last, that the Minister might be going to cap Ken. We look forward to seeing the Livingstone letter. The planned increase is still 9.9 per cent., as the Minister said, so perhaps the Government have overcome their fear that the Mayor of London's pledge of allegiance to the Labour party is so qualified that he has to be handled like cut glass. It should not be a difficult letter to write, just a standard draft. The Deputy Prime Minister could even top and tail it, and could perhaps finish with a few words saying what personal pleasure it gives him to see Mr. Livingstone once more embraced in the bosom of the Labour party.
	The settlement is much better than last year's, and of course councils should budget as tightly as possible and constantly seek to eliminate waste and duplication. However, there is a problem with local authority inflation and the constant demand for the delivery of new services, without the assurance of the long-term funding to support them. Public service pay is rising at a rate of some 5 per cent. a year, and 60 to 70 per cent. of local authority costs are on pay. For example, we have seen pay increases in the fire and rescue services. We also know that demand is increasing. There is not an hon. Member in this House who has not seen people at his surgery concerned about problems in social services relating to care of the elderly, threats to places in residential homes and local authorities' difficulties in funding those care home places, particularly with the new standards that are being applied. That is a major constituency issue for all of us. A home has closed near Skipton in my constituency, and the only alternatives offered are miles away in Bradford and Lancashire, too far for any relatives to visit. People in their 80s, towards the end of their lives, have been displaced into a completely alien environment.

Michael Jabez Foster: The right hon. Gentleman clearly states that increased pay is an issue for local authorities, but fair pay for local government workers is important. Would he find the answer in restricting that pay, and not providing fair pay to people who work in the public sector?

David Curry: The hon. Gentleman has entirely missed the point. Local authorities depend substantially on Government grant—we know that, although we all wish that it were otherwise and are trying to work to alter the situation. But while that is the case, and while local authorities are therefore subject to national pay negotiations, the money has to be raised somehow. If it is not raised by grant, it comes from council tax. That is the point. It is a matter of record that public service pay is rising by some 5 per cent. a year, and that that is a significant burden on local authorities.
	There are also the rising costs of child protection—after the Climbié case—the mounting cost of adoption and fostering, and the rising cost of domiciliary care. I am sure that all hon. Members find that that is another persistent issue in their surgeries. Social services are almost always the main sufferer where education pre-empts other spending in circumstances in which the total grant is inadequate.

Dennis Turner: What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say about the excellent revenue support grant settlement that Wolverhampton has had? It will delight the council tax payers, who will be asked to pay only a very reasonable increase. One can think back to the years of the Conservative Government, when council tax increases were much higher. The right hon. Gentleman was partly responsible for that.

David Curry: Some cities have benefited substantially from the reallocation of the formula, and Wolverhampton is perhaps one of them, but many others have not, and still face real difficulties. That is my point. I am not making a crude and universal condemnation. This is a very sophisticated condemnation of the way in which the Government have distributed the funds.

Nick Raynsford: Given the right hon. Gentleman's very sophisticated analysis of the pressures on local government and the costs, will he now tell the House whether he agrees with the settlement that we propose or whether he would increase it?

David Curry: I have made it absolutely clear that we shall oppose the settlement because of the mess that the Government have got themselves into, the way in which the formula has been applied, the betrayal of the excellent councils, despite a pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman's own boss, and the additional burdens imposed upon local authorities. I have spelt that out for the second time. I would do it again, but I do not think that it is necessary.
	We also have the increase in environmental services, in waste collection—

Anthony Steen: I am sorry to stop my right hon. Friend in mid-flow, because we are much enjoying his speech. His colleagues on the Conservative Benches thoroughly agree with what he is saying.
	My concern, and that of my hon. Friends in Devon, is the actual cash amount that Devon people have to pay in council tax. They are running out of money, and cannot pay it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that because council tax has been allowed to run away with itself, and has increased and increased, people can no longer afford the services that the county council says they have to pay for? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that what is important now is to reduce the staffing levels in councils right across Devon? In this way, council tax could be reduced at a stroke.

David Curry: I agree that if there is clear evidence of waste it should be eliminated, but I do not agree that the council tax has run away with itself. The Government have imposed the increases in council taxes. This is not a self-induced mechanism. The Government have failed to match their requirements by grant.
	We have the increases in environmental services, and we are all in favour; we want to see the landfill directive implemented. We want to see the UK get over its catastrophic record in recycling, for example.
	There is also simply the business of being in business: pensions, insurance, utility bills, the implementation of single status. Those are all new, major burdens on government. They are not invented. There is remorseless pressure because of increased demand, compounded by inflation.
	District councils often get the thin edge of the wedge, because the increase is below or near the level of inflation pretty well across the board, so the services that are often most visible to local people—street cleaning, lighting, local roads—are likely to suffer. They have also been the ones hit by the council tax benefit difficulties.

Paul Beresford: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate that in the winding-up speech the Minister's response will be that every local authority has an inflation increase? But, of course, that is an inflation increase on last year, when many local authorities, particularly in the south and south-east, were savaged, unlike Wolverhampton and other urban Labour boroughs in the north.

David Curry: I do not know what the Minister will say, but clearly we do not have long to wait, so we shall soon discover.
	What will happen next year? Is the £340 million extra a one-off or is it a recurrent payment? If it is not a recurrent payment, if it is not in the base for next year—and the Government keep warning of the tight spending round—it must be found locally, and that looks like 2 per cent. on the council tax simply to start from the same place.
	So the problem is that this is a dishonest settlement. It pretends to be much better than it is. It is distorted by the ordering of the distribution of school funding by the Government. It will have an inevitable consequence of tightening the squeeze on social services. It is disfigured by the threat of crude and universal capping, because this is a Government back to their bullying, hectoring, prescribing, dictating worst. This settlement must be opposed.

Bill O'Brien: This debate is of paramount importance to local government.
	I declare my interest, as the chairman of SIGOMA—the special interest group of municipal authorities—in the House of Commons. Our aim in SIGOMA is to present to Parliament the interests of municipal authorities, including metropolitan authorities, outside London and the effect of Government policies on the services provided by our authorities affecting our constituents. My right hon. Friend the Minister is aware of our role, and I ask him to take note of the points that I and other members of SIGOMA may put in the debate.
	Funding is of paramount importance in providing the services that I have mentioned, and the formula for allocating funds is what the local government finance report is about. I shall address some of the areas of concern expressed by members of SIGOMA. The report covers the year 2004–05, and sets out the amount of grant to be paid to each local authority and other specified bodies for the coming year.
	First, I record my appreciation of my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire, for the support given to local government since 1997. Under the Tories, for 18 years, local government suffered tremendously from cuts in finance that reduced services, as has been made clear tonight. The devastation of 18 years left a blight on many local authorities from which they are still recovering. Under the Tories, industries such as mining, steel, glass and railways all suffered, which created vast areas of deprivation. Local government had to address and provide for that deprivation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has recognised the problem of deprivation and has helped the local government wards that have been identified as the most seriously deprived. The Government and local government have worked together in delivering improved services to deprived communities, which is appreciated. Revenue funding, however, is still a real issue to be addressed, as the report demonstrates.
	The formula spending share, which was introduced in 2003–04, recognised to some degree the need for a new formula, which helped each local authority to assess how the calculation for major services was arrived at. That is addressed in section 4 of the report. What the report does not show is the definition of poverty in the 21st century, and we are requesting that there should be improvements to the weightings given in the deprivation indicators in the formula. The needs in relation to individual problems and circumstances cannot be identified in the formula, so the requirement for freedom for local authorities to deliver those services through targeted grants is the way forward. We are asking for more freedom to be allowed to local authorities to face the way forward in terms of help for individual needs.
	To some degree, the delivery of services to the most deprived communities has been successful with the neighbourhood renewal fund—the NRF. My question to my right hon. Friend the Minister is what will happen when the NRF comes to the end of its life? Crucial services will be lost, and much of the progress and improvements in those areas will fade away if funding is not maintained. We need to ensure that adequate resources are provided at the crucial level of funding through the NRF. I ask for that to be addressed in the winding-up speech tonight.
	A further concern that I want the Minister to take seriously is population decline. In many metropolitan areas, we have witnessed population movement, which impacts on education, social services and the main, core services provided by local authorities, which in turn creates deprivation and a vicious circle. Because population decline requires certain services to be maintained, that puts heavy costs on local authorities.
	In relation to data loss and the census, which was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Minister, SIGOMA estimates that the loss to local authorities owing to data change is £85.6 million—as per the analysis of change data issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We accept that there is a loss in that regard, and I hope that it will be addressed. I know that my right hon. Friend referred to that issue, but I consider that it demands more attention.
	A further point to which I wish to draw attention is revaluation. The current system has a basic premise that resources are distributed on the basis of need and will provide equal levels of council tax if authorities spend at FSS. Reference to that is made in annexe C. The current system is based on valuations 10 years out of date that bear no relationship to the current position. The relationship between the ability to pay and the level of council tax has diverged over the years, with the perverse result that council taxes are higher in the most deprived areas—the very communities that have a low tax base and cannot raise revenues to fund much-needed services. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that serious situation. The lack of revaluation penalises SIGOMA authorities to the extent of about £270 million a year. Some compensation should be given for that loss of income.
	SIGOMA members welcome the commitment to the introduction of revaluation in 2007 but I reiterate my plea for help for those authorities that will be penalised because of the lack of revaluation.
	Block 6 of the report refers to environment, protective and cultural services. Interventions have referred to the effect of that block on services to local authorities. About 21 per cent. of household waste is recycled or composted but that figure must increase significantly to meet the landfill directive targets for 2010—by which year, 30 per cent. of household waste will have to be recycled. By 2015, the figure must increase to 33 per cent.
	The Prime Minister's strategy unit report "Waste not, Want not" referred to a 45 per cent. increase in household recycling rates by 2015, with households taking part in kerbside collection programmes. If waste recycling targets are to be met, local authorities must be offered additional resources because while the proposed programme is important, it will cost money. It is vital that there is funding for that that follows the costs incurred as a result of the targets.
	The final settlement block does not provide further support for the recycling block, as was requested by SIGOMA members. Pressures on that block will continue to be highlighted by SIGOMA, to achieve recognition within the current spending review. I ask my right hon. Friend, when he winds up, to give some indication of how the Government will address the extra resources needed under the environment, protective and cultural services block.

Edward Davey: As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, a core issue is the Government's attitude to capping, now that we know the settlement. Despite many years of Labour opposing capping and the Government's new-found attachment to the new localism, they talk of little else. They seem obsessed with capping. Ministers spend their time browsing newspapers and surfing the web for any report on any draft budget from any council, anywhere, just so that they can write a letter threatening capping—talking tough.
	As councils throughout the country set their budgets, they need to know what the House feels about the Government's obsession with capping. By voting against the Government today, we can send a signal to councils that they should stop looking to Ministers but look instead to their electorates. We can send a signal to the Government that the House rejects the return to the extreme centralism of the Conservatives and reasserts its belief in local democracy.
	The Government's case is based on the claim that this is a generous settlement.

Nick Raynsford: It is.

Edward Davey: By one measure, it is a generous settlement. In terms of absolute figures and percentages, the settlement is far more generous than anything ever proposed by the Conservatives. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon is on the dodgiest of ground. As a Conservative Minister whose settlements led to severe cuts in education and social services, and as a Minister who praised the council tax—as, indeed, an Opposition spokesman who still supports it—he has little to offer.
	When referring to Procrustes, the Minister forgot to say what Procrustes did to people who were too short for the bed in his inn. He put them on the rack. That is where the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and his party are when it comes to the council tax.
	I am surprised that the Minister is using such a modest comparison to measure his generosity. He should be taking into account not just what Ministers are giving councils, but what Ministers are telling councils to do with the money. He talks continually about the revenue support side, but conveniently forgets the constraints that his Government are imposing on the expenditure side. The truth is that the Government are forcing councils to spend money on things on which they might not choose to spend it.
	There is a long list. It includes the costs of unnecessary audit, inspections, comprehensive performance assessment and best value. Then there are the costs of supporting the plethora of central Government initiatives such as the local strategic partnerships, the work force remodelling exercise and the electronic service delivery targets for 2005. There are the national insurance costs, and the higher pension costs caused by the Government's policy.
	Many of the costs may be linked to worthy Government objectives, such as the implementation of freedom of information legislation, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and higher care standards. The point is that they should be subtracted from the Government's self-proclaimed generosity before they pat themselves on the back. Those are extra costs that must come out of the settlement. It is like being given a Christmas present that one does not really want: one is happy to have the bright new shiny Chinese wok or the lovely fondue set, but would have preferred the cash. That is the problem that the Government have got themselves into.
	Our criticism of the Government's claim to generosity does not deny the increase in revenue support, nor does it argue for more. I hope that the Minister will accept from me that Liberal Democrats are not saying that he should have provided more cash. What we are saying is that he should have provided the cash without the massive accumulation of extra costs and responsibilities whose cumulative effect makes this a tight settlement.

Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: I want to make some progress, as many Members want to speak.
	Above all, the settlement should have been made without strings. It comes with more strings than an orchestra. On ring-fencing, passporting, targets and inspections, the Government have tried to tie down councils' freedom so much that they have ended up tying themselves in knots. The central problem for this settlement is the tangled relationship between capping and the Whitehall controls—or, more specifically, the disastrous collision between education passporting and capping threats. At the centre of that collision are the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Education and Skills.
	I genuinely believe that the ODPM would like to give councils more freedom, but it has been told to keep council tax down, so it has offered a generous settlement. Then in charges the DFES, with its demands for all education cash to be passed on. Crash! No freedom.

Michael Jabez Foster: Would or would not the hon. Gentleman's party insist on passporting?

Edward Davey: We would leave it to the local education authorities. That is called local democracy. It is something in which this Government used to believe when they were in opposition.
	What are councils to do, faced with this dilemma? Are they to obey the DFES and passport education cash, while risking the capping of the unavoidable increase in council tax? Or are they to obey the ODPM, keeping back some of the education cash and setting a modest council tax but risking legal action on the part of the DFES?
	That is a dilemma for far too many councils. Let us take two, Labour-controlled Telford and Wrekin and Liberal Democrat-run West Berkshire. Telford is supposed to be a flagship Labour authority, judged excellent by the comprehensive performance assessment; yet last year it under-budgeted, set a lowish council tax and ended up borrowing. Now the day of reckoning has arrived: there is talk in Telford of a 13 per cent. rise. If that happens, will the Minister cap Telford? After all, it is an excellent authority and the Government promised to give excellent authorities freedom from capping—but, of course, they reneged on that. Telford will be a big test for the Minister's logic.
	Then there is West Berkshire, another well-performing authority. Caught in the pincer of passporting and capping, it is obeying the DFES, and as a result looking at a double-figure council tax rise—simply because it obeyed central Government. For West Berkshire, the situation is even more galling. The ODPM says that it deserves more money, but it lost more than £3 million of what the ODPM said it needed last year, due to the ceilings. This year, the ceiling will cost it the £3.6 million that the ODPM says it is now due. With that cash, its council tax would indeed be in low single figures.

David Rendel: Does my hon. Friend realise that in a way, the situation is even worse than he suggests? The very fact that the Government have imposed a ceiling on West Berkshire indicates that it was underfunded for many years under the previous formula. So there is now a big backlog of necessary expenditure, towards which not a penny is being offered.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Such councils are having huge problems. The effects of passporting, capping and ring-fencing are combining with that backlog and creating real problems.
	We have arrived at a truly bizarre situation. The Government admit that a given council deserves more cash, but they take it away to fund the settlement's floors. When the council tries to adjust its budget by spreading its remaining cash fairly across its services, it is told that it cannot do so, and that much of the cash should go to schools. Then, when it tries to raise its council tax to do what it has been told, it is capped. No wonder the Audit Commission said that the Government's council tax system is fundamentally flawed. Frankly, that was an understatement. What are councils supposed to do if such a dilemma is the fruit of a generous settlement?
	The truth is that, although this settlement may be generous when measured against the Conservative record, it is far from generous when measured against the new Labour world of controls and caps. For the Minister's sake, I repeat: we are talking about more generosity not in terms of cash, but in terms of freedom—freedom for councils. Ironically, by granting such freedom he would set himself free—free from the burden of having to cap councils.
	Let us look a little more closely at the Minister's dilemma: his stance on capping. He has been talking tough, but he has been sending out totally mixed messages. That is probably because, in reality, he is engaged in a large and complex poker game. First, we are told that the Government want low single figures. What does that mean? Well, 5 per cent. and under would seem to be the obvious message. But then we get the statement about "single figures". What does that mean? Many in local government think that that means 9.9 per cent. or less. Yet when many Labour councils are struggling to get under 10 per cent., we hear on the local government grapevine that some councils might get away with increases in the mid-teens. What are we to make of all this?
	What of fire authorities? Many suspect that it is in respect of fire authorities and police authorities that we will see the highest rises, and for a multitude of reasons. There is the pay settlement, which is hitting rural fire authorities, with their retained firefighters, particularly hard. There is also the pension problem, which gets worse every year, the up-front costs of the modernisation agenda, and the cost of the new combined fire authorities building up their reserves. And there is the perhaps most bizarre centrally imposed cost pressure of all: fire authorities being forced to hike the council tax to comply with new accounting rules imposed by the centre, yet if they comply with them, they get capped. That is truly byzantine.
	What is the Minister's intention for the fire authorities? He says that he will meet them tomorrow, but it is a shame that he could not share with the House what he is going to tell them. Will he cap them? Will he require districts to re-bill when he has capped them, at a cost probably equal to the "overspend" of the fire authorities? That would mean council tax payers' money going on re-billing, not fire protection. This is bizarre.
	When one appreciates how ridiculous this mess has become, it is perhaps possible to understand why Ministers are obsessed with capping. It is the last hiding place of the Whitehall control freak. If Ministers cap, they are capping their own mess. That is why Liberal Democrats say, "Scrap it, don't cap it."
	I want to ask the Minister several specific questions about this year's settlement, the first of which relates to the extra cash provided in a panic by the Chancellor in the pre-Budget report: the £340 million sticking plaster. There is some concern that that money has been taken directly from the NHS budget. Will the Minister assure the House that that is not the case, and instead come clean and tell us where the extra cash came from? If he cannot, there is an even greater need to ask my second question about the £340 million. There is a view that that sum has not been built into the baseline budget for next year for the ODPM and for councils. In other words, it is not just a sticking plaster, but one designed to come off in a year. If that is the case, it is a serious charge, for the £340 million is equivalent to 2 per cent. on council tax, and if the cash is effectively time-limited, we are witnessing the stealthiest council tax rise of all. It is in there, but it is being deliberately delayed to get the Government through the June local elections. I thought that they had tried every trick in the book, but it looks like they have invented a new one.
	What about licensing? The Government promised that the new responsive licensing would be self-funding and that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport would design a mechanism. Will the Minister confirm that today? We still do not know what the mechanism will be, which is serious. The Minister is urging councils to be prudent, but should a prudent council provide for the contingent liability that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, when it comes to licensing, might not be able to organise the proverbial in a brewery? When will that other Whitehall silo get its act together for the ever patient, always subservient local government?
	I would like the Minister's assurance on a final matter. His excuse tonight might well be that we should all wait for the balance of funding review. He might argue that he sees all the problems and understands the difficulties, but that we should all be patient because the matter is in hand. He is a well-respected, well-liked Minister who listens. He may persuade some of us sometimes, but he needs to provide reassurances—and I seek two tonight.
	First, can he give the House a categorical assurance that education funding will not be centralised as a way out of the balance of funding problem? No. 10 advisers have worried about that problem, but will the Minister resign if school funding is taken away from local authorities, which would be a disgrace?
	Secondly, we need to know more about the timing and status of the review's conclusions. The Minister said at ODPM questions yesterday that the review would report in the summer. Does that mean before the summer recess, during the recess or when we come back in September? The Minister appears not to know, so we would like some clarification. When we get the report, what status will its recommendations have? Will it lead to the reform of council tax through the legislative powers of the Local Government Act 2003? Will it lead to this Parliament producing more legislation, or will it just be a contribution to the Labour manifesto? We need to know how quickly the Government are going to deal with this appalling problem.
	The Minister may not want to be definitive in answering those questions tonight. I understand that, but given that he seeks the House's support tonight, he could at least share some of his current thinking with us. With the council tax system and the current settlement so badly flawed, the Minister should be charting his path out of this quagmire for all to see. Otherwise, we can have no confidence in this policy, no confidence in the settlement and no confidence that the Government have a clue about what they are doing.

Jim Marshall: May I tell my right hon. Friend that I am not criticising him when I point out that in a debate of less than two hours, only 20 minutes is provided for Back-Bench Members? Surely we would all, including my right hon. Friend, agree that that is totally unacceptable. I suggest that my right hon. Friend and other Front-Bench Members make representations to the appropriate quarters so that in future years we can have a fuller and more representative debate than we are having this evening.
	I did not participate last year, but usually in these debates I have a go at the Government for failing to provide sufficient resources for the city of Leicester. The Minister will be pleased to hear that that is not my intention tonight; indeed, I intend to put the boot into the city of Leicester. As the Minister knows, the Labour party lost control of Leicester last year and a Lib-Dem/Tory council took its place. In recent weeks, we have seen the consequences of the Leicester electorate's decision. Despite a reasonable settlement—higher than 5.5 per cent.; lower than 6 per cent.—which will safeguard social services and education, the people of Leicester are now threatened with a council tax increase of 14 per cent. and savage cuts in voluntary sector provision.

Gary Streeter: I am following the hon. Gentleman's remarks closely. I am glad that the people of Leicester have had a fair and reasonable settlement this year. However, for the past two years fair settlements like that have been paid for largely by people in the south of the country. Why should the people of Plymouth—a deprived and challenged community itself—pay for the people of Leicester?

Jim Marshall: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speeches in recent years, he would have heard me complain that Leicester had not received sufficient funds. I am making an exception this evening, for the reasons that I gave earlier.
	The people of Leicester are now being threatened with a 14 per cent. increase in council tax, and savage reductions in the provision of services by the voluntary sector. If it is imposed, the increase in council tax will be totally unacceptable. It will adversely affect social cohesion and increase social exclusion in the city, and have an adverse impact on Leicester's good race relations record.
	The new leaders of Leicester city council cite two reasons for the proposed increase. The first will not surprise anyone, especially those who listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), the Liberal Democrat spokesman. The leaders claim that the financial situation left by the previous Labour administration rendered such an increase inevitable.
	Anyone who has looked at the books will accept that that is simply untrue. The leader of the Labour group on the city council will set out an alternative budget in the next few weeks that would achieve a substantial reduction in the proposed level of council tax but without the swingeing cuts in the voluntary sector.
	I have some sympathy with the second claim made by the new leaders of Leicester city council. They argue, as I have argued in the past, that Leicester has been historically underfunded ever since it returned to unitary status. That underfunding has been exacerbated every year. The city council now claims that the city is owed £20 million. I have been asked—as have my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz)—to speak to Ministers to try and get that money returned.
	I do not have any great faith that the money will be returned, but I should be grateful for an assurance from Ministers that they will look into that claim again. I hope that, in future years, assessments can be made to take account of that historical underfunding.
	I do not believe that the difficulties faced by Leicester city council this year are an order of magnitude different from those faced in previous years. In discussions that I have had with the council's leaders, it has become clear that there are legitimate questions to be asked about proposed levels of financial provision for certain services. There are big arguments about whether the proposed level of reserves, the allocation of millions of pounds to parks for unspecified reasons, and the proposed level of expenditure on maintenance, are necessary.
	That is not an exhaustive list of the questions being asked, but it is illustrative: it shows that, if there is political will in the new city council leadership, proposals can emerge that would be acceptable to council tax payers in Leicester, and lead to a substantial reduction in the proposed level of council tax. I urge the city council to follow that lead.
	What concerns me most of all, however, is the proposal to cut expenditure in the voluntary sector from £11 million at present to £9 million over the next two years. If that £2 million reduction is carried out, it will impact on the whole city and all groups in the city, and no section of the community in Leicester will be unaffected: women's groups will be affected; children's groups will be affected; mental health organisations will be affected; and ethnic minority groups will also be affected.
	In my view, the reduction is a mindless attack on those groups which have done so much in Leicester to improve social cohesion, tackle social exclusion and improve race relations. To be parochial, the closure of Goldhill adventure playground and Braunstone adventure playground in Leicester, West will inevitably lead to more young people on the streets, with a possible attendant increase in social problems. The threatened closure of the Saffron resources centre will remove one of the key players in improving the life chances of the people who live on Saffron Lane estate in the outer city of Leicester.
	The biggest cuts will be made in Highfields, which is the crucible of the multi-racial, multi-ethnic population of the city. If the cuts are carried out, one must fear for the continuing development of Leicester as a good multi-ethnic community. The cuts are short-sighted and fail to recognise the value for money provided by the voluntary sector in Leicester. The damage done to our city and its development as a multicultural city will be irreparable. I hope that the cuts can be stopped and that the new leadership of the city council eventually sees the light and realises the futility and stupidity of its current proposals.

Eric Pickles: At this point, I would normally comment on speeches by Back Benchers, and it is a matter of some regret that I cannot comment on speeches by my hon. Friends because they have been denied an opportunity to speak—they have, however, made a number of telling interventions.
	I can also say to the usual channels that Her Majesty's Opposition take the view that half a day is sorely inadequate to debate one quarter of public expenditure, and I hope that we will now see—

Michael Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Pickles: Yes, of course. We have plenty of time.

Michael Foster: I know that the hon. Gentleman cannot comment on contributions by Conservative Back Benchers, but perhaps I can help him. A leading Conservative Front Bencher told a group of Worcestershire head teachers that he believed that the area cost adjustment should be scrapped. Does he agree with that position?

Eric Pickles: Why did I take the intervention? I must have been mad.
	We must restore confidence in the system by which the grant is allocated, because the system is shot. The speech by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) was immensely naive on one point: he asked whether central Government would take over education; they have. They absolutely control education and passporting is the final straw. It is the final measure that gives them complete control over education. Education authorities receive a sum of money which they pass over to schools, and sometimes they must find extra money because the Government have not allocated sufficient funds. The nature of passporting has completely skewed the organisation of local government finance. It means that there is practically nothing left in many authorities for care for the elderly, children in need, cleaning, or even for mundane things such as dustbins. Nor is there anything left for rodent control, about which the Prime Minister talked with such knowledge and passion yesterday.
	We heard from the Minister his usual honeyed words about how adequate the whole settlement is, but we have been there before. As early as November, he said how generous the settlement was and that there was no reason why councils could not continue to improve services while sticking to a reasonable council tax increase. However, within a couple of weeks, the Chancellor of the Exchequer found it necessary to put in the additional sum of £340,000—[Interruption.] I am sorry—I mean £340 million.
	Perhaps we should not be surprised, because the Minister said the same things last year. But we now know that last year council tax went through the roof. The average council tax rose by 12.9 per cent. on band D properties, which was the biggest increase in the history of the council tax. Previously law-abiding citizens refused to pay the council tax increases and old-age pensioners were dragged before magistrates courts for non-payment. Senior police officers warned of a breakdown in law and order.
	The same formula that distributed the grant will also be used to distribute the extra top-up. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made great play of the mere £6,000 that will be given to West Sussex. Put into context, that means that the good folk of West Sussex whose property is in band D will receive the princely sum of 2p off their council tax bills. By any stretch of the imagination, that is penny-pinching.
	My right hon. Friend was also right to point out the discrepancy between Conservative and Labour authorities. After passporting is taken into consideration, Labour authorities have received, on average, an increase of £6.6 million, but Conservative authorities have received an average of £2.5 million. We all know who will get the blame. Last year, most people blamed the councils, but this year we know from ICM that the people blame the Government. The independent Audit Commission blames the Government. The blame lies firmly on the shoulders of the Government.

Nick Raynsford: indicated dissent.

Eric Pickles: It is true. The Audit Commission says that burdens from central Government increased local authorities' costs and that changes in the allocation of funding hit many councils hard. It dismisses the Government's claim that the high rises last year were because the councils were not up for re-election.
	The level of council tax has reached a high that even this Government find unacceptable. Council tax has been used for a purpose that it was never intended for. It has distorted the whole system of local government. Rather than scrabble around for a new form of taxation, the Government should remove the distortion. They must stop using council tax as a stealth tax to bring in public expenditure by the back door.
	I shall conclude with some apposite words from the Minister. On the subject of capping, he said, in this very Chamber:
	"We see a sad and sorry picture of the imposition of centralised diktats by Ministers who cannot possibly understand the intricacies and detailed implications for local communities".—[Official Report, 24 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 346.]
	This is indeed a sad and sorry settlement.

Phil Hope: We have held a short, intense but important debate on the financial settlement for local government next year. Many Members have had the chance to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire, and many of them spoke in support of their local area. However, I noticed that no one asked for less money to be given to their council.
	Many Members asked for unreasonable council tax increases to be capped, or to be dealt with. I have looked back at some of the debates when the Conservatives were in power; the Tory Government, who deliberately failed to recognise the problems of deprivation, boasted that tax increases under Tory councils were the lowest. Today, it appears that, on average, Tory councils, with the Liberal Democrats close behind, are planning to set higher council tax rates than Labour councils. Of course, they will try to pin the blame on the Government, but local people know better. They know that every council has received consistent, above-inflation support for its services every year since 1997. They know that Tory councils are to blame for high council taxes.
	The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was ambivalent about capping when he responded to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett); he refused to say whether he would cap councils in future. Given the right hon. Gentleman's record in government, that is strange, as he was one of the most ruthless, across-the-board, capping Ministers this country has ever seen. He knows that Tory councils cost us more, and that if ever they got back into government a Tory Government would cost us more.
	What emerged from the right hon. Gentleman's contribution was the way the Tories would find the savings to stop those rises. We heard it: cuts to public services. That is the answer that the Tories came up with. Basically, the right hon. Gentleman said that public sector pay was too high, so all our public sector workers in local government know that their pay would be cut if the Tories ever came back to power.

David Curry: The hon. Gentleman disfigures entirely what I said. I said that public sector pay was rising at 5 per cent., and when I was asked whether I wanted to cut it, I said "no" and that the Government had to finance it because it was a cost on local government. That is what I said.

Phil Hope: Those of us with a history of representing workers in the trade union movement all know what it means when we hear a Tory Minister talking about public sector pay going too high.
	The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who is no longer in the Chamber, did not actually focus on public sector pay, but on public sector jobs. He said that the only way to reduce the cost of local government is to reduce the number of public sector workers in local government. Not only will the Tories cut their pay; they will also cut public sector jobs. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is only backing up his leader, who believes in small government. And what does that pledge mean in practice? A 20 per cent. cut in public sector spending across the board. That would be the impact of a Tory Government in charge of local government.

Gary Streeter: rose—

Phil Hope: From the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), we discovered that the Liberals are opposed to important new developments, such as local strategic partnerships, which do much locally to bring local agencies together and improve public services. It appears, however, that the Liberal Democrats will scrap those partnerships, along with other interventions we have made, such as the comprehensive performance assessment, which are driving up standards in local government. As a result of inspections and the support, such as the CPA, that local government enjoys, councils' performance improves year on year. The hon. Gentleman should tell his Liberal Democrat friends in local government, who are often the greatest enthusiasts—

Gary Streeter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, I have been unable to put the point that I came into the Chamber to make, and as you also know, no Conservative Back Bencher has been able to speak—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman, probably from understandable frustration, is distorting what a point of order should be. I cannot accept that.

Phil Hope: The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) intervened twice during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister and made his points then.
	It appears that the Liberal Democrats are opposed to passporting, too—as, it seems, is the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who is opposed to the passporting of money for education. That is interesting in view of the comments about Cambridgeshire made in February 1997 by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was then in government. He said that the Conservatives had concentrated on education because
	"the majority of people feel that it should be a priority . . . If a local authority does not passport through the money, as is provided for, it will be for the electorate to ask it whether it shares their priorities".—[Official Report, 3 February 1997; Vol. 289, c. 678.]
	The right hon. Gentleman wants to see money going to education—or he did then—but his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench no longer do. It always amuses me when Conservative MPs ask for more money, even though their Front-Bench colleagues would clearly cut it.
	Let us contrast the Tory record with that of a Labour Government who believe in helping communities to help themselves. At the centre of that belief is our commitment to support local authorities in doing the job that local people rightly expect them to do.

It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the police grant report motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question forthwith, pursuant to Order [2 February].
	The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 160.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2004–05, HC 276, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that strong representations were made at last week's business questions that today's important business should not be taken on the shortest day of the week, especially as the business for the week was light. As you know, both last Thursday and this Monday the business did not carry and the time was not used. Could you bring that to Mr. Speaker's attention so that he can use his influence to bring it to the attention of the Government and the usual channels, and try to protect the interests of Back Benchers for the future? You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that not a single Conservative Back Bencher was able to speak in the important debate on the local government settlement.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not bad enough that the Government scheduled business in a way that allowed very little time for it? They compounded that felony when the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire spoke for an excessively long time. Twice, therefore, the Government managed to squeeze out Back Benchers, from their own party as well as Opposition parties. Can nothing be done to protect the House and Back Benchers from such activity by the Government?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The original point of order is not strictly a point of order for the Chair, but it is certainly a matter of concern for the Chair, whose interest is to protect the interests of Back Benchers. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will know that the Chair does not organise the business of the House. The House's agenda and the time allocated for it are usually determined through the usual channels. There is a difficulty, because when a time limit is imposed, which Mr. Speaker has been encouraged to do by the Modernisation Committee, Back Benchers take a cue and intervene on Ministers. If Ministers are generous in taking interventions, time on a day when there is at most half a day for business is very severely curtailed for Back Benchers. I am sure that Mr. Speaker will read Hansard and the points that Members have made. In essence, the matter must be resolved by amicable negotiation through the usual channels.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

Trans-European Transport Network

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. COM (03) 132, Commission Communication on developing the trans-European transport network: innovative funding solutions and interoperability of electronic toll collections systems and draft Directive on the widespread introduction and interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community; and endorses the Government's approach to discussions on this document.—[Paul Clark.]
	Question agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (MID-DORSET AND NORTH POOLE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Paul Clark.]

Annette Brooke: I am extremely pleased to be able to make points directly to the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) on behalf of my constituents. He will no doubt have heard all the previous debate and might be thinking, "Not more of the same." However, week after week, I receive letters from constituents who are extremely worried about future council tax increases; it is certainly the biggest single issue that is raised with me.
	The second biggest issue is the provision of services locally, whether people are waiting to be rehoused, need better support from social services, want to know why the revenue funding per school pupil is much lower than in neighbouring Hampshire—about £100 per pupil—or why we do not have a more visible and accessible police force. It an important part of my representative role to tell the Minister about my constituents' deep concerns.
	I should like to start by outlining briefly some of the characteristics of my constituency, which includes parts of four principal council areas—Poole unitary authority, East Dorset district council, Purbeck district council and Dorset county council. There are four parish councils and two town councils and area committees within Poole unitary authority, as well as the Dorset police and fire authorities. About two thirds of the population live in the urban area, but two thirds of the land area could be classed as rural.
	From afar, my constituency would be judged an affluent area. The current level of unemployment is less than 1 per cent., so why do I stand up every year in the House and argue that my constituents have had a bad deal? In previous debates, I have focused on pensioners and I must make some further points today, bearing in mind that more than 20 per cent. of the population of Mid-Dorset and North Poole are of pensionable age.
	The area has the characteristics of a low-wage and high house-price area, as was confirmed last May, when the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report entitled "Can Work—Can't Buy" on the affordability of homes in different parts of the country, taking into account the cost of living and wages. The report concluded, according to the press release, that
	"the asking price for modest homes in Purbeck, East Dorset or North Cornwall demands almost as big a share of the typical pay packet for local workers under 40 as higher priced homes in the fashionable London boroughs of Westminster, Camden and Islington."
	Areas such as Poole and Purbeck feature on the list of the least affordable areas in England, because the relatively low local rates of pay place home ownership beyond the reach of young working households, even though local house prices are lower than those in London and the south-east. Of the 40 authorities with the highest house price to income ratios, seven out of the 40 are in Dorset. Purbeck is sixth on the list.
	On Monday this week, I was pleased to be able to attend the opening of Jobcentre Plus in Poole, and I was very impressed by the services on offer. Having been invited to play with the job-search machines, I printed details of a few local jobs: "Branch advisers, 37.5 hours a week, £11,500 to £13,000 per annum"; "Production labourers, £5.50 per hour"; "Sales adviser, £3.87 to £5.22 per hour"; "Waiting staff, up to £5 per hour, depending on experience". Those examples are taken from just a preliminary look through what was on offer. There were plenty of jobs, but the problem was the salaries—although the picture is mixed, because wages are considerably higher in the public sector, IT and financial services.
	To put those characteristics in people terms, I should like to quote from some letters that I have received over the past week. Mr. W writes:
	"I understand that the council tax bill for Dorset is likely to be increased by a staggering 7 per cent. I feel that I must put on record my concerns with regard to such an increase, firstly we are told by Government that inflation is running at around 2 per cent. I myself have a fixed income and have no way of increasing it, so that I have to balance my affairs which is increasingly difficult when taking into account massive rises in local taxation".
	Mrs. D says:
	"Having been to several of the council tax public meetings I can see the County and District Councils have got a really difficult task to set the budget without losing too many services. The government formula does not appear to distribute funding in a fair way throughout the country. Despite being confirmed by the Audit Commission as an excellent authority, Dorset County Council's grant is one of the lowest in the country. How can it keep up its high standards? In addition there is talk of increases being capped at 5 per cent. This would surely terminate important services, I am particularly concerned about proposed cuts in the Outdoor Education Service, young people will be deprived of a valuable and integral part of their education".
	This is from Mr. C:
	"I wish to add my voice to the many from Dorset who will be encouraging you to speak up for this lovely County. What a good place it is to live in? What a good County for its services. But we urge the Government to reward us with higher grants to encourage our Council and enable our older citizens to pay their Council Tax and live!"
	I shall not read too many letters, because my mailbag is enormous, but I must point out that the letters I receive from pensioners reflect even deeper worries about how they will cope with paying their council tax.
	On Saturday, I made a home visit to a family with three children living in a two-bedroomed first-floor flat with no garden—an East Dorset Housing Association property. The husband is a fully qualified social worker earning £18,000 per year. It is impossible for the couple to raise a big enough mortgage even to part buy/part rent a three-bedroom house in the area. The housing association has said that rehousing may take five years: the couple are desperate, but what can they do? The combination of the low wage economy, high house prices and a shortage of affordable housing is producing the saddest and most insoluble cases in my constituency. The couple went on to tell me how their standard of living would be further eroded by a big increase in council tax. Many constituents come to my surgery on manufacturing wages of around £13,000, in fear of what is ahead of them.
	I believe that my constituents are suffering for the following reasons: there is inadequate funding for services from central Government; the shortfall in funding puts extra pressure on the council tax, which is unrelated to the ability to pay; and the shortage of affordable housing forces young local people to move from the area or, in some cases, be trapped in unsuitable accommodation for long periods. The local councils cannot be judged as inefficient. Last year, Dorset was judged excellent, and Poole only one point less than excellent.
	Last year, in line with national trends and because of the implementation of the new formula, council tax increases were in double figures. This year extra windfalls, such as levying the council tax on second homes at 90 per cent., mean that council tax increases will be considerably lower. However, in an ideal world, the bulk of the second home council tax would have been used to support more affordable social housing. Instead, a large proportion is being used to keep the council tax down. In addition, Dorset county council is considering some drastic cuts in services. As well as outdoor education, which I mentioned earlier, a day centre for those with mental disabilities and libraries may be closed. Support for bus services may be reduced and day centres may be closed for one day a week. Any such cuts inevitably hit the most vulnerable residents.
	Dorset county council receives both the lowest formula spending share and the lowest revenue support per head of population of all county councils. Council tax payers have to pay for 45 per cent. of spending, compared with 32 per cent. in the average county council. Dorset is the ninth lowest spending county council per head of population this financial year and cannot be judged as a high spender. It faces specific spending pressures in social services as a result of having the highest proportion of older people of all county councils.
	Some of the problems that face Purbeck district council include financing the continuing deficits of the superannuation scheme and increasing responsibilities and demands from central Government. The 3 per cent. increase in Government grant is welcome, but it is simply not enough. The council cannot implement its recycling plan because of the additional costs that are likely to take the council into capping. Similar issues arise in East Dorset, including concerns about the cost of the new licensing regime.
	The main additional expenditure for East Dorset is recycling, and it has plans for phased implementation. However, as in much of Dorset, recycling facilities are already good and the county therefore starts from a high base of 18 per cent. The Government have set new targets for East Dorset of 40 per cent. The council estimates that it will cost an extra £1 million to extend recycling to 40 per cent. of the district, but there are no additional grants or funds to help attain such a target. At a cost of approximately £30 per household, the district council faces a problem of phasing and spreading costs and implementation over a long period.
	Poole is in a better position this year, and I hope that that is partly as a result of my previous representations. The Liberal Democrats ran the council efficiently until May last year. Windfall gains this year mean that the new administration will not face the previous year's tight budgetary constraints. However, the council tax increase is likely to be considerably more than the rate of inflation.
	Concern remains about low funding for education. Poole primary school funding is the lowest in the country, despite the fact that there are deprived areas. One ward in my constituency is in the lowest deprivation quartile and there are pockets of deeper deprivation in the area. Earlier this year, a group of Poole head teachers met the Minister for School Standards, and I hope that he is dealing with some of their concerns. The head teachers were pleased with his attention to their anxieties.
	Much uncertainty has been created in all councils because they do not know the position on capping. That is unhelpful for budgeting.
	The overall increase in central grant of less than £2 million is wholly inadequate even to meet unavoidable costs such as pay and pension changes. It does not tackle the problem that Dorset police, who receive the second smallest amount of central funding per head of the population, remain underfunded in comparison with other forces. Consequently, Dorset's police expenditure is low; it traditionally spends the lowest per head of population of all but five forces. The police element of the council tax may increase by 9.7 per cent. Dorset is an efficient force, but so much more could be done with better funding. Residents expect a better service when they are asked to pay more.
	The change to precepting status for Dorset fire authority, as for the other combined fire authorities, brings new responsibilities and duties, about which we have heard this afternoon, such as the need to provide for reserves and balances. To meet an increase of no more than 5 per cent. in the precept, Dorset fire authority would be able to set a budget only on the basis of present policies, while making a contribution to setting up a general reserve. It would have to bring to a halt progress on the Government's modernisation agenda and, after taking account of transitional funding, would still need to make further cuts of £1.25 million. Those cuts are equivalent to 50 whole-time posts, which is 16 per cent. of the whole-time establishment, or 167 retained posts, which is 50 per cent. of the retained establishment. The limited transitional funding does little to meet that agenda or the pay award, and it is totally unrealistic to expect rural authorities such as Dorset to find evidence-based savings to repay the transitional funding in the time suggested.
	Dorset fire authority has asked me to represent its serious concerns to the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. It recognises the need to limit the burden on council tax payers, but believes that it is unrealistic to expect combined fire authorities to deliver a modernised fire service, and move to precepting status, with the limited funds allocated in this year's grant settlement. My residents are faced with a grim prospect: either a hefty increase in one part of their council tax or unacceptable cuts in services, with implications for safety and lives. I am pleased to hear that there is a meeting tomorrow, and I hope that my representations on behalf of Dorset fire authority are therefore timely.
	We have unfair funding and an unfair tax. The Government could address the formula by revisiting the idea of resource equalisation, or by revisiting area cost adjustment to take on board high house prices and low wages. The forthcoming year will be the second year of the new formula, and I should like the Minister to look at those important possibilities for following years. It would make an enormous difference to my constituency if the area cost adjustment could take into account high house prices, and be applied to my councils.
	I am sure that the Minister can predict that, before I sit down, I shall suggest amendments to the council tax system. Council tax should be scrapped and replaced with a tax related to the ability to pay. Local income tax was recommended for this country in 1974 by the Layfield committee. Baroness Thatcher, aided by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), chose to introduce the poll tax. The people revolted over that, as they are now doing over council tax. Even a 5 per cent. increase is unacceptable to those on low or fixed incomes. It is still more than twice the rate of inflation, and will mean the erosion of living standards.
	Nationally, the poorest 10 per cent. pay more than four times more in council tax than the richest 10 per cent., as a proportion of their income. The poorest 20 per cent. of pensioners pay nearly six times more than the richest 20 per cent. of non-pensioners, as a proportion of income. The time has come to axe that tax. Local income tax operates successfully in the United States, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Japan, Finland and Denmark. Why should it not do so here?

Phil Hope: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on securing this Adjournment debate and giving us the opportunity to consider further—perhaps in a slightly calmer atmosphere—the impact of the local government finance settlement on her area. She mentioned her concerns over Leeson house outdoor education centre at Prime Minister's questions this week. As the Prime Minister said then, although we recognise the value of outdoor education, it is for each local authority to decide its priorities and make its allocations.
	The hon. Lady finished her contribution this evening by mentioning the Liberal Democrat policy of a local income tax. There are serious questions to be asked over the idea of replacing the council tax, which is a good, workable tax, with a local income tax. Although the council tax is perhaps beginning to reach the end of its life as a tax on its own, to sweep it away with one alternative would be to miss out on the opportunity of considering a range of ways of improving the funding of local government and the balance of funding review. Some Liberal Democrat leaders in the Local Government Association who take part in the balance of funding review are looking at a range of measures to improve the balance of funding for local government. The hon. Lady can visit the Department's website to see the kind of options that are being explored.
	The hon. Lady will know that, earlier today, the House approved the local government finance settlement for the next financial year, and that we have increased the grant to local government by some 30 per cent. overall in real terms—that is, above inflation—since 1997. This is the seventh successive settlement to give an above-inflation increase to councils. In this case, it gives an overall increase for next year of no less than 7.3 per cent. We have also reduced ring-fenced grant from some 13 per cent. to 11 per cent., reversing the trend on the ring-fencing of grants to local authorities.
	I should like to pick up on the issues that relate particularly to Mid-Dorset and North Poole. Of the local authorities in the hon. Lady's constituency, Dorset county council will receive an increase of 6.3 per cent. on its £185 million grant next year—an increase of £11 million—and Poole borough unitary authority will receive an extra £3 million, an increase of some 4.3 per cent. East Dorset district council will receive £3 million in grant, an increase of 3 per cent., while Purbeck district council will receive £2.7 million in grant, also a 3 per cent. increase. All those figures have been adjusted to take account of the changes in responsibilities, and so on, between the two years, so they are on a like-for-like basis. They represent significant increases above the rate of inflation that will enable the councils to improve the quality of their services and to keep the council tax down.
	The hon. Lady read out some very clear messages from her constituents, and I think that most hon. Members will have received similar letters telling us that the public are unhappy with the unreasonably large council tax increases of recent years. We share her concern about that, as those increases hit those on fixed low incomes particularly hard. We were very disappointed that the average council tax increase for this year was 12.9 per cent. In our view, that is unsustainable.

Annette Brooke: Would the Minister accept that the Audit Commission said that the reason for the large increases in council tax last year, particularly in the south-west region, was the implementation of the new formula?

Phil Hope: I regret that I cannot accept that entirely. The Audit Commission gave a very balanced view of the reasons for this year's council tax increases, which included the turbulence that has taken place in relation to this year's funding and the fact that some local authorities took the opportunity to put up the council tax because we had not given as clear an indication as we are now doing that unreasonably large increases would be capped if they continued. We have said that continued year-on-year increases in council tax on the scale that we have seen will be unacceptable to voters—including the people who have written to the hon. Lady and to me—and, frankly, to the Government.
	We know that the electors will make their views clear through the ballot box, but the Government will, if necessary, use their capping powers. We do not threaten capping lightly. We would prefer councils to answer directly to their electorate for their decisions, but we cannot stand aside if they continue to impose unreasonable increases. That includes all local authorities, including those categorised as excellent or good in current or future comprehensive performance assessments. Everyone is on notice that we will consider capping excessive council tax increases.
	Given the generous grant settlement for next year, and the scope for efficiency improvements, our view is that local authorities can and should deliver council tax increases in low single figures next year. We are looking at proposed council tax rises very closely. I am pleased that initial indications suggest that many local authorities have listened and are planning increases in low single figures. However, some have not listened, so we remain prepared to use the capping powers if necessary.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on these issues, seemed to make it clear in the debate this afternoon that he does not support capping. If the hon. Lady is as concerned as I am, from the letters that she has received, about what councils might do if they do not behave reasonably, she might like to have a word with her Front-Bench spokesperson and to try to convince him of the wisdom of the Government's approach.
	We understand the concerns of the people of Mid-Dorset and North Poole, particularly the pensioners and others on low incomes. We believe that those on low incomes should be helped, and we have a system of council tax benefit. However, the problem is that so few people on low incomes—particularly pensioners—are aware of their right to this money. Many seem to be put off by the stigma of claiming a benefit or by the length of the form. Some 1.4 million pensioners are not claiming the council tax benefit to which they rightly have a claim. Central and local government need to work together to do more to ensure a higher take-up of that benefit. We shall see whether any other improvements can be made to the system.
	The hon. Lady raised the question of education. I know that there is concern in Poole and Dorset that the authorities are among the lowest funded on a per-pupil basis, but the new formula funding system is based on evidence suggesting that authorities with significant deprivation and additional costs of recruiting and retaining staff need to spend significantly more to make proper provision for their children.
	The new formula uses up-to-date data, and strikes a proper balance between the basic amount of funding per pupil, which is the same everywhere, and top-ups for pupils with additional educational needs and top-ups for areas with high costs for salaries, recruitment and retention. The needs of sparsely populated areas are also properly reflected in the formula. This concerns a point that the hon. Lady made, because Dorset is a rural area.
	The main reason why Poole and Dorset have a lower level of funding for pupils than many other authorities is that they do not attract as much funding as other authorities through the additional funding for deprivation and area costs. On the measures for deprivation, both Poole and Dorset have well below the national average numbers of children of families in receipt of income support, which is the most heavily weighted deprivation factor. They also have a below-average number of children with English as a second language and those from low-achieving ethnic groups.
	The hon. Lady pointed out, and I appreciate, that Poole and Dorset do have some deprived areas. It is for the local education authorities, through the local funding formula that they use, to ensure that the additional funding that they receive to reflect that reaches those schools in their areas that most need it.
	I turn to social services, where we think there has been a good settlement this year, demonstrating the Government's commitment to helping councils to care for the more vulnerable and needy members of their local population. Both authorities are two-star social service authorities, with the structure in place to improve further. The extra resources and the funding spending shares should enable them to do just that.
	The hon. Lady also raised the question of funding for recycling and waste management. In the last two spending reviews we have substantially increased the environmental, protective and cultural services, known as the EPCS, block of finance, which includes waste management services. We increased that provision in the block by £1.1 billion over the three years in the strategic spending review 2000, and in the spending review 2002 we increased it by a further £671 million over the then three years.
	There has been extra funding for East Dorset and Purbeck. The national waste minimisation and recycling fund in round two meant that Purbeck district council received a grant of £104,560 for this financial year, 2003–04. East Dorset district council received a grant of £492,760.

Annette Brooke: If Purbeck has been granted some extra money, would you expect the recycling scheme to start this year?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady does not expect me to deal with those matters. She should use the right parliamentary language by now.

Phil Hope: It will, of course, be a matter for the authority itself to use wisely and sensibly the money that the Government are providing, to get on and get it spent to make the schemes happen. The extra money has gone to those local councils in addition to the formula grant that they receive. It is one of a number of extra grants that put extra cash into a local authority, relieving the burden on the mainstream funding and providing the extra funding needed to provide those new services, and to achieve the new targets that I think everybody believes should be achieved in the delivery of better services.
	East Dorset district council will also benefit from Dorset county council's partnership bid, which was awarded £2,196,380 for this financial year. These are substantial sums of money provided by the Government to assist local authorities to achieve the sorts of targets and improvements that we wish to see. The hon. Lady has rightly raised the question of recycling and waste management, and I hope that she does not find it unreasonable for me to point out the extra resources that have been provided for those local authorities.
	The hon. Lady also mentioned the fire service and the meeting that will happen tomorrow, during which I am sure her comments will be taken into account. We recognise some of the difficulties, and we have written to all the fire authorities. One of the particular problems has been that of creating reserves in the new, separately precepted, combined fire authorities. We have explained in writing that those authorities do not need to create those kinds of reserves in year one, all in one go. If their precept is designed to do that, it is not necessary—it can be spread over a period of three years, thereby relieving the pressure in relation to such a high fire precept.
	Finally, the area cost adjustment was mentioned. Before, a crude system was used, in which London was shown with a series of a concentric circles, and the areas further away from London received a bit of extra help in their grant. We have scrapped that, and we now have a new system of area cost adjustment, which is more sensitive to local circumstances. It recognises that high-cost areas can exist outside the south-east, and that variations exist within London and the south-east. As the hon. Lady was explaining, the difficulty in her area is that wage levels, which are the issue, are low. The point about the area cost adjustment is that it is designed to help local authorities to deal with their problems of recruiting and retaining teachers and the extra costs that they face as a result: the cost of supply cover for vacant posts, which is generally higher, the cost of employing a permanent member of staff, or the costs of recruiting and advertising for staff.
	The problem for the hon. Lady is that in refining the area cost adjustment, we have targeted the allowance at those authorities with the greatest recruitment and retention difficulties, which do not include Poole and Dorset. Her authority does not therefore benefit from the area cost allowance, which is more refined but which will benefit others. The result of that is that the coverage of the adjustment for area costs has been extended so that it now includes 99 authorities, as opposed to 59. I appreciate that it does not help her solve her problem, but it has made life better for those authorities—
	The motion having been made after Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Seven o'clock.